Mar Salle Convalescent Home

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 429 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

MAR SALLE CONVALESCENT HOME
Mar Salle, Inc. d/b/a Mar Salle Convalescent Home
and Service Employees International Union, Local
536, AFL-CIO. Case 5-CA-4134
October 29, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On August 20, 1968, Trial Examiner Charles W
Schneider issued his Decision in the above-entitled
case, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The
Charging Party filed exceptions to the Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner, including his granting of the General
Counsel's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and
Respondent's response to the Trial Examiner's Show
Cause Order, and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER2
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
I Respondent contends that the Board is precluded from asserting
jurisdiction because of a lack of proof on the record that the necessary
legal jurisdiction exists. Respondent 's answer to the complaint, how-
ever , admits that its gross revenues for the preceding year exceeded
$100,000 , and that it purchased goods and materials valued at in .. ess
of $25,000 from suppliers located in the District of Columbia
Moreover , Respondent 's principal office and place of business is located
in the District of Columbia where the Board asserts jurisdiction on a
plenary basis . The Westchester Corporation, 124 NLRB 194, M. S. Ginn
&Co, 114NLRB 112.
2 The Union excepts to the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order,
contending that the Board should order a monetary remedy to make the
employees whole for losses they may have suffered as a result of
Respondent 's unlawful refusal to bargain (including losses incurred as a
result of the employees strike action ). It also urges that the Board order
Respondent to grant , upon request , a union shop provision , including a
dues check-off provision . We deem it inappropriate in this case,
however, to depart from our existing policy with respect to remedial
orders in cases involving violations of Section 8(a)(5).
173 NLRB No. 69
429
Re:ations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
Orders that Respondent, Mar Salle, Inc , d/b/a Mar
Sa'.1e Convalescent Home, Washington, D. C., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING'
Upon petition filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C A 159 (c)) on February 5,
1968, by Building Service Employees' International Union,
Local 536, Building Service Employees' International Union,
AFL-CIO,' herein called the Union,3 a hearing was held by the
Regional Director for Region 5 of the Board who subsequently
issued a Decision and Direction of Election in an appropriate
bargaining unit, described hereinafter, of the employees of Mar
Salle, Inc., d/b/a Mar Salle Convalescent Home, Washington,
D C., herein called the Respondent
On March 13, 1968, the Respondent filed a Request for
Review of the Decision and Direction of Election in which it
alleged that the Regional Director erred in excluding three
admissions clerks, five switchboard operators, and a medical
secretary, from the appropriate bargaining unit. This request
for review was denied by the Board on March 27, 1968, on the
ground that it raised no substantial issues except as to the unit
placement of the three admission clerks, which the Board said
could best be resolved through the customary challenge
procedure.
Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on April 2, 1968,
under the supervision and direction of the Regional Director
Immediately following the election the parties were served
with copies of the tally of ballots which showed that of
approximately 122 eligible voters, 114 cast ballots, of which
71 were for, and 38 were against the Union. There were 5
challenged ballots. On April 8, 1968, the Respondent filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election alleging (1) that the Union had made wholesale
proimses that the Union would obtain more money for the
employees immediately if the employees would vote for the
Union, (2) that the Union had established a picket line with
' Administrative or official notice is taken of the record in the
representation proceeding , Case 5-RC-6293, as the term "record" is
defined in Section 102.68 and 102 .69(f) of the Board's Rules (Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, National Labor Relations
Board , Series 8, as revised January 1, 1965). See LTV Electrosystenis,
Inc., 166 NLRB No. 81 , enfd. 388 F 2d 683 (C.A 4, 1968), Golden
Age Beverage Co, 167 NLRB No 24, Intertype Co v Penello, 269
F Supp 573 (D.C Va , 1967), Follett Corp, 164 NLRB 378, enfd 397
F.2d 91 (C.A. 7, 1968), Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA.
2 Since the certification of the Union, the international union has
changed its name from Building Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, to Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. The
local Union has apparently made similar changes in its designation, since
the charge was filed by "Service Employees International Union, Local
536, AFL-CIO." In accordance with a request by the International
Union to the Board, dated June 28, 1968 , requesting appropriate
change in the Board 's records , the name of the Union has been amended
accordingly herein.
3 See fn. 1, supra
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pickets carrying signs that the employer was unfair because he
would not sign a consent election agreement, (3) that the
Union had continued to pass out literature and attempted to
sign up employees the day after the election, and (4) that the
Union had distributed three kinds of leaflets during the
campaign which were objectionable because two misrepre-
sented the facts and the other confused the employees concern-
ing the representation and checkoff authorization which they
were requested to sign.
On May 2, 1968, the Regional Director issued a Supplemen-
tal Decision and Certification of Representative in which he
stated that he had conducted an investigation of the challenges
and objections, found that the objections raised no substantial
or material issues with respect to the election, overruled the
objections, and certified the Union as the representative of the
employees of the appropriate unit As to the challenged
ballots, the Regional Director stated that they were not
sufficient in number to affect the results of the election
Thereafter on May 27, 1968, Respondent filed a timely appeal
with the Board from the Regional Director's Supplemental
Decision and Certification of Representative overruling Re-
spondent's objections to conduct allegedly affecting the results
of the election No request for review was filed with respect to
the Regional Director's ruling on the challenges
On June 6, 1968, the Board issued an order denying the
Respondent's request for review of the Regional Director's
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative, on
the ground that it raised no substantial issues warranting
review.
THE COMPLAINT CASE
On June 20, 1968, the Union filed the unfair labor practice
charge involved in the instant case, in which it alleged, interaha,
that on or about June 19, 1968, the Respondent refused to
bargain with the Union
On June 27, 1968, the General Counsel, by the Regional
Director of Region 5, issued a Complaint and Notice of
Hearing alleging that the Respondent had committed unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the
Union upon request. In due course the Respondent filed its
answer to the complaint in which certain allegations of the
complaint were admitted and others denied.
In its answer the Respondent admits the following allega-
tions of the complaint- (1) filing and service of the
charge, (2) certain jurisdictional facts, (3) that the Union is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act, (4) that an election was held, (5) that the Union has re-
quested the Respondent to bargain collectively, and (6) that the
Respondent has refused and continues to refuse to bargain
Respondent denies the allegations contained in the complaint
to the effect that (1) the Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act, (2) the
bargaining unit is appropriate, (3) the Union has been and is
now the exclusive representative for purposes of collective
bargaining of a majority of the employees in the unit, and (4)
that by the refusal to bargain, in connection with the other
allegations described, the Respondent did engage in, and is
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of the Act
The Respondent affirmatively asserts in its Answer that the
Union engaged in conduct violative of the Act and precluding a
fair and impartial election, and, further, that the Board is
without jurisdiction of the subject matter for the reason that
the Board's jurisdictional standards for nursing homes are
invalid and constitute an unconstitutional classification of
nursing homes
Under date of July 16, 1968, received July 17, counsel for
the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
which he contends that the pleadings, considered together with
the official Board record in the underlying representation
proceeding, Case 5-RC-6293, raise no issues requiring a
hearing, that Respondent's defense set forth in its answer raises
no litigable questions of fact, and that, as a matter of law,
Respondent has no valid defense to the complaint.
On July 18, 1968, 1 issued an Order directing the parties to
show cause as to whether or not General Counsel's Motion
should be granted On July 29, 1968, counsel for the
Respondent filed an Opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment No other responses have been received.
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In its Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment the
Respondent urges that the General Counsel's motion should be
denied for a number of reasons, which in summary are as
follows (1) the unit is inappropriate and was improperly
decided, (2) there are unresolved issues, (3) a full hearing and
report by a trial examiner is required, (4) the jurisdictional
standard adopted by the Board for nursing homes is arbitrary
and invalid, and in any event the record on jurisdiction is
inadequate, and (5) no proper investigation of the objections
to the election was made Additionally, the Respondent
demands production of the affidavits and statements taken by
the field examiner in the investigation of the objections to the
election. None of these propositions is found to be supported
With respect to the unit issue the Respondent urges that the
admissions clerks, telephone switchboard operators and the
medical secretary were improperly excluded from the appro-
priate unit. The Respondent further contends that no formal
decision together with reasons or grounds or authorities for its
ruling was ever issued by the Board in regard to the exclusion
of the admissions clerks, telephone switchboard operators, and
the medical secretary. In addition, the Respondent asserts that
the unit issue was not finally resolved for the reason that
though the Board directed that the unit placement of the
admissions clerks be resolved through the challenge procedure,
the Regional Director merely held that the challenged ballots
were not sufficient in number to affect the results of the
election.
The questions raised by the Respondent relating to the
appropriateness of the unit were either specifically adjudicated
in the representation proceeding or opportunity was afforded
for such adjudication. Those issues are therefore not litigable
here. It is established Board policy, in the absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence or special cir-
cumstances, not to permit litigation before a trial examiner in
an unfair labor practice case of issues which were or could have
been litigated in a prior related representation proceeding 4
The record before me does not disclose the identity or
4 Howard Johnson Co, 164 NLRB 174, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co, 163 NLRB 579 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v. N. L.R B., 313
U S 146, 162 ( 1941 ), Rules and Regulations of the Board , Sections
102.67(f) and 102.69(c)
MAR SALLE CONVALESCENT HOME 431
classification of the challenged employees. However, if it be
assumed that the admissions clerks were among them, the fact
that their status has not been finally decided is not, in the
presented circumstances, a basis for refusal to bargain as to the
remainder of the appropriate unit in the absence of indication,
of which there is none here, that bargaining cannot convenient-
ly proceed in the interim. Houston Chronicle Publishing
Company, 130 NLRB 1243, 1245-46.
In any event, other considerations require rejection of the
Respondent's contentions concerning unit placement of the
admissions clerks. The first is that the Board refused to review
the Regional Director's action in certifying the Union, and that
action is binding on the trial examiner The second is that the
Regional Director's action finding decision on the challenges
unnecessary became final by reason of the Respondent's
failure to except to or to request review of it. Section
102 67(f) of the Board Rules provides as follows:
The parties may, at any time, waive their right to request
review. Failure to request review shall preclude such parties
from relitigating, in any related subsequent unfair labor
practice proceeding, any issue which was, or could have
been, raised in the representation proceeding. Denial of a
request for review shall constitute an affirmance of the
regional director's action which shall also preclude relitigat-
ing any such issues in any related subsequent unfair labor
practice proceeding.
In its appeal from the Regional Director's Supplemental
Decision and Certification of Representative the Respondent
appealed only the Regional Director's action in overruling the
Respondent's objections to the election based upon conduct
by the Union. The Respondent thereby acquiesced to the
Regional Director's decision on the challenges, at least for the
purpose of this proceeding. The Respondent's contentions as
to the unit determination are therefore not supported.
With respect to the Respondent's assertion that no formal
decision was issued by the Board, the Respondent cites Section
8(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act. (5 U.S.C. 557 (c)).
However, no formal decision by the Board, in the Respon-
dent's sense of the term, was required for two reasons- (1)
section 8(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act is not
applicable to cases involving the certification of employee
representatives,' and (2) Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act authorizes the Board to delegate to the Regional
Director authority under Section 9 of the Act to decide
questions of representation, the Board has delegated such
authority in its rules (Subpart C, Section 102.60, et seq.), and
the Regional Director has issued formal decisions. If formal
decisions were required, these sufficed
Concerning its contention that a hearing and report by a
trial examiner are required, Respondent states that a hearing
on objections is required by the Administrative Procedure Pct,
and that the Morgan cases,6 require a full hearing and report
by a trial examiner containing findings and conclusions and
base; therefore. However, it is to be observed, first, that a
hearing is not a matter of right in connection with the
disposition of objections to an election, either under the
Administrative Procedure Act or the Morgan cases, unless
substantial and material issues are raised by the objections.7
The cases cited by the Respondent' do not negate this
proposition; they merely hold that where there are substantial
and material issues a hearing is required. In addition, neither in
the Respondent's opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment nor in its appeal from the Regional Director's
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative is
there a suggestion that the Respondent requested a hearing on
its objections to the election.
Concerning jurisdiction, the Respondent asserts that the
Board's standards for nursing homes are arbitrary and invalid
in that the dollar amounts of income required for the exertion
of jurisdiction are too low when compared with those required
for other enterprises. Additionally, the Respondent contends
that where jurisdiction is questioned, evidence of other
jurisdictional factors, such as direct and indirect inflow and
outflow must be contained in the record, and there is none
such here.
Whether the Board has jurisdiction over the Respondent
was necessarily decided in the representation proceeding 9 In
addition, the record of the representation case does not
disclose that the Respondent raised any such issue there. In the
absence of a showing of cause, the Respondent is therefore
precluded under Board rules 102.67(f) and 102.69(c), referred
to supra, from raising the question here. Respondent cites no
authority in support of its position that where jurisdiction is
questioned the record must contain evidence of other jurisdic-
tional factors, such as direct and indirect inflow and outflow.
The contention is therefore rejected.
With respect to the Respondent's assertion that there was
not a full investigation of the objections to the election, I find
that issue also waived by reason of the Respondent's failure to
raise this matter in the representation proceeding. In addition,
there is no indication as to what the Regional Director failed
to do in this respect.
In its Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment,
Respondent requests copies of the affidavits and statements
taken by the field examiner in the ex parte investigation of the
objections to the election under the provisions of the Public
Information section of the Administrative Procedure Act. (5
U.S.C. 552, Public Law 89487(1966).) This request is denied.
In the circumstances of this case such documents are consid-
ered exempt from production by reason of section 3(b)(7) of
the Public Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)) and not
properly part of the record in the representation proceeding.
See cases cited in footnote 2, supra.
There being no unresolved issues requiring an evidential
hearing the motion of the General Counsel for summary
judgment is granted, and I hereby make the following further.
5 Sec. 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 554).
6 Morgan v United States, 304 U.S. 1, 58 S.Ct. 999, 82 L.Ed. 1129
(1938), Morgan v. United States, 298 U S 468, 56 S.Ct. 906, 80 L Ed.
1288 (1936).
7 O.K. Van & Storage Inc., 127 NLRB 1537, enfd 297 F.2d 74
(C.A. 5, 1961). See Air Control Window Products, Inc, 355 F 2d 245,
249 (C.A. 5, 1964) " If there is nothing to hear, then a hearing is a
senseless and useless formality ." See also NL. R.B v. Bata Shoe Co.,
377 F.2d 821 , 826 (C.A 4, 1967 ) ` ... there is no requirement,
constitutional or otherwise , that there be a hearing in the absence of
substantial and material issues crucial to determination of whether
NLRB election results are to be accented for nurooses of certification."
8 N.L R B. v Lord Baltimore Press, 300 F.2d 671 (C.A.4., 1962),
NL R B v Dallas City Packing Co., 230 F 2d 708 (C.A.5 , 1956),
NL.R.B v. Poinsett Lumber Co, 221 F.2d 121 (C.A.9., 1955),
NL.R B. v. West Texas Utility Co, 214 F 2d 732 (C.A.5., 1954);
N.L.R.B. v Sidran Sportswear, 181 F.2d 671 (C.A.5., 1950)
9 See for example , the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of
Election, fn . 2 thereof.
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Mar Salle, Inc., d/b/a Mar Salle Convalescent Home, the
Respondent, is, and has been at all times material herein, a
corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the
laws of Delaware. It maintains its principal office and place of
business in the District of Columbia, where it is engaged in the
operation of a nursing and convalescent home.
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business
operations in the past year, a representative period, derived
gross revenues valued at in excess of $100,000, and purchased
goods and materials valued at in excess of $25,000 from
suppliers located in the District of Columbia.
Respondent is, and has been, at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) of the Act
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The following employees of the Respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
All hourly-paid employees, including licensed practical
nurses, charge nurses, aids, orderlies, kitchen, housekeeping,
and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's
Washington, D C , nursing home, but excluding registered
nurses, bookkeepers, dieticians, admissions clerks, switch-
board operators, medical secretaries and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
On April 2, 1968, a majority of Respondent's employees in
the said unit designated and selected the Union as their
collective bargaining representative in a secret-ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director of
Region 5 of the National Labor Relations Board.
On May 2, 1968, the Regional Director certified the Union
as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit Respondent's request that
the Board review the Regional Director's certification was
denied on June 6, 1968.
At all times since May 2, 1968, and continuously to the
present, the Union has been the representative for the purpose
of collective bargaining of the employees in the said unit, and
by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act has been, and is now, the
exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for
the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment and other terms and
conditions of employment.
10 The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the employees in
the appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their selected
bargaining agent for the period provided by law. See Mar-Jac Poultry
Co., Inc., 136 NLRB 785, Commerce Co. d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140
NLRB 226, 229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 379 U.S.
817 (1964), Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd.
350 F 2d 57 (C.A. 10, 1965).
It is admitted and found that on or about May 10, 1968,
the Union requested the Respondent to meet with it for the
purpose of collective bargaining with respect to the employees
in the appropriate unit, and that on or about June 13, 1968,
Respondent refused and continues to refuse to do so
By thus refusing to bargain collectively the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act and has interfered with, restrained and coerced its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire
record in the case, I recommend that the Board issue the
following
ORDER
A. For the purpose of determining the duration of the
certification the initial year of certification shall be deemed to
begin on the date the Respondent commences to bargain in
good faith with the Union as the recognized exclusive
bargaining representative in the appropriate unit i 0
B Mar Salle, Inc , d/b/a Mar Salle Convalescent Home, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Service Employees
International Union, Local 536, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of the employees in the
following appropriate bargaining unit*
All hourly-paid employees, including licensed practical
nurses, charge nurses, aids, orderlies, kitchen, housekeeping,
and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's
Washington, D.C., nursing home, but excluding registered
nurses, bookkeepers, dieticians, admissions clerks, switch-
board operators, medical secretaries and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) Interfering with the efforts of said union to negotiate
for or represent employees as such exclusive collective bargain-
ing representative, or in any like or related manner interfering
with employee efforts at self-organization
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Service Employ-
ees International Union, Local 536, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment, and embody in a signed
agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its office and place of business in the District of
Columbia copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix."' i Copies of said notice, on forms to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 5, shall, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
1 r In the event this recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words
"Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
MAR SALLE CONVALESCENT HOME
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing,
within 20 days from receipt of this Recommended Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' 2
12 In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director
for Region 5, in writing, within 10 days from receipt of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner
of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to
effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we hereby notify our employees that*
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Service
Employees International Union, Local 536, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of all our
following employees-
All hourly paid employees, including licensed practical
nurses, charge nurses, aids, orderlies, kitchen, housekeep-
ing, and maintenance employees, employed at our
433
Washington, D C , nursing home, but excluding regis-
tered nurses, bookkeepers, dieticians, admissions clerks,
switchboard operators, medical secretaries and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the Union
to negotiate for or represent employees as exclusive
collective bargaining representative, or in any like or related
manner interfere with employee efforts at self-organization
or bargaining
WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union as ex-
clusive collective bargaining representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit and if an understanding is reached
we will sign a contract with the Union
MARSALLE,INC d/b/a MAR
SALLE CONVALESCENT HOME
(Employer)
Dated . ................. By . .............
(Representative) (Title)
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
If employees have any question concerning this Notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate direct-
ly with the Board's Regional Office, 1091 Fed. Bldg., Charles
Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (Tel. No. 301-962-2822)