Memorial Hospital of Salem County

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 27, 2015

04-CA-130032 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 27, 2015)

JD–11–15
Salem, NJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SALEM HOSPITAL CORPORATION,
A/K/A THE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF
SALEM COUNTY
and Case 04-CA-130032
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND ALLIED
EMPLOYEES, AFT/AFL-CIO
David Faye, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Carmen M. DiRienzo, Esq.,
for the Respondent.
Lisa Leshinski, Esq. (HPAE),
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SUSAN A. FLYNN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, on December 1, 2014.1 Health Professionals and Allied Employees AFT/AFL-CIO
(the Union) filed the charge on June 3, 2014, and the General Counsel issued the complaint on
September 22, 2014. 2 The complaint alleges that Salem Hospital Corporation a/k/a the Memorial
Hospital of Salem County (the Respondent) violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act) when it failed and refused to bargain with the Union over the
effects of its decision to close the inpatient obstetrics unit and discontinue the HealthStart
program,3 and failed and refused to provide the Union with information it requested regarding
the closure of the unit. The Respondent filed answers denying all material allegations.
On the entire record, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the
Respondent, and the Charging Party, I make the following

1 I kept the record open for the Respondent to serve subpoenas on the Charging Party. Thereafter, I
granted the Charging Party’s petition to revoke the subpoenas and closed the record on January 2, 2015.
2 The General Counsel orally amended the complaint at the trial. No substantive changes were made.
3 HealthStart is a Medicaid program that provides comprehensive prenatal/maternity care and
preventive pediatric services for children under age 2, including counseling and appropriate referrals.
JD–11–15
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
5
The Respondent, Salem Hospital Corporation, is a New Jersey corporation that operates
an acute care hospital in Salem, New Jersey. It receives gross revenues in excess of $250,000
annually and purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 annually from points
directly outside the State of New Jersey. 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 and a 10
health care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
I further find that the Union, Health Professionals and Allied Employees, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
15
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Parties’ Collective-Bargaining History
An election was held at the hospital on September 1 and 2, 2010, which the Union won. 20
The Respondent filed objections but those objections were dismissed (Case 04-RC-021697).
That decision was upheld by the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) and, on August 3,
2011, the Board certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
Respondent’s employees in a unit defined as: all full-time and regular part-time, and per diem
registered nurses, including staff nurses, case managers, and charge nurses, excluding all other 25
employees, managers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Following its certification, the Union requested that the Respondent recognize it and
begin bargaining. The Respondent advised the Union that it was contesting the Board’s
certification decision and therefore refused to meet and bargain. (GC Exh. 2.) The Union filed an 30
unfair labor practice charge and the General Counsel issued a complaint. On November 29,
2011, the Board granted the General Counsel’s motion for summary judgment; the Board found
that the Respondent had violated the Act and ordered it to meet and bargain with the Union. 357
NLRB No. 119 (2011). The Respondent has filed a petition to review that decision and the
matter is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.35
At the same time that it requested bargaining, the Union requested information regarding
employees’ wages, hours, benefits, and other terms and conditions, in order to prepare for
contract negotiations. The Respondent replied that it would not provide the requested
information because it was contesting the certification. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert 40
Giannasi issued a decision on
April 17, 2012, finding that the Respondent had violated the Act; that decision was adopted by
the Board. 361 NLRB No. 61 (2014).4

4 Previously decided at 358 NLRB No. 95 (2012).
JD–11–15
3
In October 2011, the Union requested information regarding discipline against unit
members, including termination, and requested to bargain over those actions. Again the
Respondent failed to provide the information or to bargain. The Union filed an unfair labor
practice charge and the General Counsel issued a complaint. The case was heard by ALJ Arthur
Amchan who found that the Respondent had violated the Act. That decision was adopted by the 5
Board. 361 NLRB No. 110 (2014).5
In April 2012, the Respondent did not respond to the Union’s request for information or
to bargain about its decision to change the dress code. ALJ Michael Rosas found the Respondent
violated the Act; that decision was adopted by the Board. 360 NLRB No. 95 (2014).10
Those three latter cases have been appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Union’s Demands to Bargain and Requests for Information
15
At the relevant time period, Danna Lowrie was the union organizer, responsible for
organizing and servicing the bargaining unit at the hospital. She held that position from
November 2013 to August 2014. Lowrie was supervised by Frederick DeLuca, then the Union’s
assistant director, private sector representation. Barry Schneider was the Respondent’s chief
operating officer from December 2013 to May 2014.20
In January 2014, some of the nurses advised Lowrie that they had heard rumors that the
Respondent was planning to close the inpatient obstetrics unit and the HealthStart program.
They also reported that the sole physician in that unit was planning to retire and there was no
intent to replace him. Therefore, DeLuca directed the Union’s research unit to file an OPRA 25
(Open Public Records Act) request with the State of New Jersey Department of Health,
inquiring whether the Respondent had submitted a request to the State to close the unit. The
Department of Health responded that the Respondent had asked permission to close its inpatient
obstetrics unit.
30
On January 15, 2014, Lowrie sent Schneider a letter demanding to bargain over the
effects of such closure on unit members and suggesting that the Respondent postpone taking
action to close the unit until such time as a first collective-bargaining agreement was negotiated.
In that letter, Lowrie also requested the following information.
35
1. The name (first, last), department, personnel records, and hire date for all RNs
projected to be affected by the proposed closure.
2. A detailed plan of how MHSC will approach obstetric patients that arrive at the
hospital in an emergency situation or otherwise. This includes, but is not limited to:40
a. What training bargaining unit members will receive in order to be
prepared to treat such patients.
(GC Exh. 3(a).)
45

5 Previously decided at 359 NLRB No. 82 (2013).
JD–11–15
4
Schneider did not respond to Lowrie’s letter.
In April, the Union saw a newspaper article regarding closure of the inpatient obstetrics
unit, to be effective May 31.6 Therefore, on April 9, 2014, Lowrie sent Schneider a second
letter, renewing the Union’s demand to bargain over the closure of the inpatient obstetrics 5
unit and advising that a new request for information would be forthcoming. (GC Exh. 4(a).)
Schneider did not respond to that letter.
On May 9, 2014, Lowrie sent a third letter to Schneider, renewing the Union’s 10
demand to bargain over the effects of closure of the inpatient obstetrics unit. Lowrie included
a copy of her April 9 letter as well as the following new information request.
As previously stated, the Union requests that the Employer provide us with the following
information by May 16, 2014.15
1. A list of bargaining unit RNs who will be affected by the OB closure to include:
a. Name, address, phone, date of hire, department and shift
b. Hospital seniority date and unit seniority date20
c. Copy of each employee's personnel file
2. A list of RN vacancies in the Hospital, to include:
a. Shift, department and any specific qualifications for each vacancy25
3. A detailed plan for how OB RNs will be absorbed into other units of the Hospital, to
include:
a. A list of training and/or orientation that will be given to the RNs30
b. An explanation of the process the Hospital plans on using to place OB RNs into
other units
4. An explanation of why the MHSC OB is being closed:
35
a. The date the OB unit will be closed
5. A copy of any and all correspondence that has been sent to bargaining unit RNs
6. Copies of any and all documents that reflect how the closing of the OB unit will affect40
existing bargaining unit RNs, to include:
a. Any and all documents that reflect how our bargaining unit RNs are to respond
to OB patients
45

6 The press release with the information contained in the newspaper article is R. Exh. 1.
JD–11–15
5
7. A detailed plan of the training and/or orientation proposed for non-OB bargaining unit
members along with a timeline and target dates, to include:
a. A list of any training and/or orientation that has already been offered to
bargaining unit members in preparation for this closure5
(GC Exh. 5(a).)
Again, Lowrie received no response from Schneider.
10
Neither Schneider nor anyone else on behalf of the Respondent ever responded in any
fashion to Lowrie’s demands to bargain or to her requests for information. None of the requested
information was ever furnished to the Union by the Respondent.7 The parties never met to
bargain about the effects of the decision to close the inpatient obstetrics unit and the HealthStart
program. The inpatient obstetrics unit closed effective May 31, 2014, and HealthStart services 15
ceased being provided by the hospital. Six obstetrics unit nurses were reassigned elsewhere in
the hospital: Silvia M. Drennan, Jill M. Cottrell, Tina Kille, Esperanza Driver, Gail Kirkwood, and
Maria R. Soone, and six nurses were terminated: Michele L. Newsome, Renee J. Garrison, Betty J.
Moore, Linda Carr-Sibley, Jacqueline Engle, and Jacqueline Wood.
20
The Respondent’s position is that it was under no obligation to bargain with the Union
over the effects of the closure or to provide the requested information, as it continues to
challenge the validity of the certification of the Union.8
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS25
A. Did the Region 4 Regional Director Have the Authority to Issue the Complaint?
The Respondent's defense that Region 4 Regional Director Dennis Walsh had no
authority to issue the complaint in this matter because he was appointed at a time when the 30
Board lacked a quorum has no merit. The Board has ruled that Walsh’s appointment was legal
and that he has the authority to issue complaints on behalf of the General Counsel. Pallet Cos.,
Inc., 361 NLRB No. 33 (2014). Further, the complaint in this case was issued on September 22,
2014, long after Walsh's appointment was ratified by a full Board on July 18, 2014.
35

7 The Respondent contends that it was an error for me to revoke its subpoenas, wherein it sought to
learn the names of the nurses who had advised Lowrie of the planned closure and provided her with
information about the closure. The Respondent’s theory seems to be that if some of the requested
information was provided by one of the charge nurses who are bargaining unit members, but whom it
contends are supervisors, then it would have satisfied its obligation.
8 The Respondent contends that the bargaining unit includes supervisors and that those supervisors
tainted the election process.
JD–11–15
6
B. Did the Respondent Violate the Act by Unilaterally Making a Change
that was Material, Substantial, and Significant?
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act provides that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to
refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of its employees. It is well settled that an 5
employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when it unilaterally makes substantial and material
changes without bargaining to impasse on matters that involve mandatory subjects of bargaining,
i.e., when it fails to provide prior notice and the opportunity to bargain over the changes. NLRB
v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 743, 747 (1962); see Litton Financial Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S.
190, 198 (1991). Termination of employment and reassignment of employees are clearly such 10
mandatory subjects.
An employer’s duty to bargain with the union over mandatory subjects includes a duty to
bargain about the effects on employees of a management decision that is not itself subject to the
bargaining obligation. See First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 677, 679–15
682 (1981); Litton Business Systems, 286 NLRB 817, 819–821 (1987), enfd. in relevant part 893
F.2d 1128, 1133–1134 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied in relevant part 498 U.S. 966 (1990), revd. in
part on other grounds 501 U.S. 190 (1991); Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 48 F.3d 1360, 1368 (4th
Cir. 1995), cert. granted on other grounds 516 U.S. 963 (1995), affd. 517 U.S. 392 (1996); Good
Samaritan Hospital, 335 NLRB 901 (2001). Often, “[t]here are alternatives that an employer 20
and a union can explore to avoid or reduce the scope of the [effects] without calling into question
the employer’s underlying decision. See Bridon Cordage Inc., 329 NLRB 258 (1999). Further,
the employer has a duty to give preimplementation notice to the union to allow for meaningful
effects bargaining. Allison Corp., 330 NLRB 1363, 1366 (2000). It is well settled that Section
8(a)(5) requires effects bargaining to be conducted “in a meaningful manner and at a meaningful 25
time. . . .” First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. at681–682. Effects bargaining
must occur sufficiently before actual implementation of the decision so that the union is not
presented with a fait accompli. Komatsu America Corp., 342 NLRB 649, 649 (2004).
The Respondent argues that it had no obligation to engage in effects bargaining because 30
the bargaining unit was improperly certified. However, that issue has already been decided by
the Board and is not before me. The Respondent contested the election results and lost before
the Board; the Union was certified and the unit determined to be appropriate. Although the
Respondent is appealing the Board’s Decision and Order to recognize and bargain with the
Union, the obligation to bargain about subsequent matters nonetheless exists. Quaker Tool & 35
Die, Inc., 169 NLRB 1148 (1968). Where an employer's objections to the election have been
rejected, its bargaining obligation commences as of the date of the election. Mike O’Connor
Chevrolet, 209 NLRB 701, 703 (1974). As noted above in the section outlining the parties’
collective-bargaining history, the Respondent has, in four prior cases, been ordered by the Board
to bargain with the Union.40
I find that Respondent had the right to make the management decision to close the
inpatient obstetrics unit and discontinue administering the HealthStart program. However, the
effects of that decision are material, substantial, and significant. Twelve nurses were affected: six
were terminated, six others were reassigned. These are mandatory subjects of bargaining, and the 45
Respondent had an obligation to bargain with the Union over those effects. The Respondent did
not notify the Union of the change before implementation, and then refused to bargain about the
JD–11–15
7
effects of the change or to delay its implementation when the Union made those requests.
Therefore, I find that the Respondent made a unilateral change that is material, substantial, and
significant.
I conclude that the Respondent’s conduct in failing and refusing to bargain with the 5
Union over the effects of the closure of the inpatient obstetrics unit and HealthStart program
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
C. Did the Respondent Violate the Act by Failing to Provide the Union with Requested
Information?10
It is likewise a violation of Section 8(a)(5) when an employer fails or refuses to provide
information requested by the union that is necessary for the effective performance of its duties.
NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-436 (1967); see NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351
U.S. 149, 153-154 (1956); Honda of Hayward, 314 NLRB 443, 449 (1994). Information 15
pertaining to the terms and conditions of unit members is presumptively relevant. NLRB v.
Rockwell-Standard Corp., 410 F.2d 953 (6th Cir. 1969). The Union is entitled to the requested
information unless the employer presents sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of
relevance. Honda, supra at 449.
20
The Union sent two requests for information to Schneider, on January 15 and May 9,
2014. Neither Schneider nor any other official responded on behalf of the Respondent to the
information requests.9 The Respondent does not challenge the relevance of the information
requested in either the January 15 or May 9, 2014 letter.
25
Request 5 in the May 9 letter is vague. However, since the remaining requests pertain to
the closure of the inpatient obstetrics unit, the Respondent may reasonably have presumed that it
referenced communications regarding the unit closure, as was the Union’s intent. (Tr. 29.) That
information is relevant.
30
However, the first portion of May 9 request 4, asking why the unit is being closed, is not
presumptively relevant. It was not necessary for the Union to know the reason for the closure, as
the decision was management’s prerogative. The Respondent was not obligated to negotiate with
the Union about the decision to close. DeLuca testified that that information was requested in
order for the Union to assist with the closure, or to develop a proposal to prevent the closure, or 35
to prepare possible alternatives to the closure, to lessen the impact on the community. While
those motives may be laudable, the Union was not entitled to that information.
The remaining requests in both the January 15 and May 9, 2014 letters are related to the
terms and conditions of the bargaining unit members’ employment and are clearly relevant to the 40
Union’s proper performance of its duties.

9 Again, the Respondent asserts that some of this information may have been provided to the Union
by individuals in the bargaining unit that it contends are supervisors, but it was precluded from
determining the source of the information since I revoked the Respondent’s subpoenas.
JD–11–15
8
Thus, I find that the Union’s information requests, with the exception of the first portion
of May 9 request 4 seeking the reasons for the unit closure, meet the Board’s standards for
relevance and the information should have been provided.
I find that the Respondent’s failure and refusal to provide the information requested by 5
the Union, with the exception of the first portion of May 9 request 4 regarding the reasons for the
unit closure, is a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10
1. Salem Hospital Corporation, a/k/a the Memorial Hospital of Salem County, is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and is
a healthcare institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
2. Health Professionals and Allied Employees, AFT/AFL-CIO (HPAE) is a labor 15
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the Union over the effects of its
decision to close the hospital’s inpatient obstetrics unit and the HealthStart program, the
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 20
4. By failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by failing and refusing
to furnish the Union with the information requested in its January 15 and May 9, 2014 letters,
with the exception of the first portion of May 9 request 4, the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.25
5. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent did not commit an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(5) 30
and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to furnish information requested by the Union in the
first portion of May 9 request 4.
REMEDY
35
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.
Make-whole relief is not appropriate in effects bargaining cases. See Fast Food 40
Merchandisers, 291 NLRB 897, 899–902 (1988). The standard remedy in effects bargaining
cases is a limited make-whole Transmarine remedy, as clarified in Melody Toyota. Transmarine
Navigation Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968); Melody Toyota, 325 NLRB 846 (1998); Rochester
Gas & Electric Corp., 355 NLRB 507, 508 (2010). A Transmarine remedy requires an
employer to bargain over the effects of its decision and to provide employees with limited 45
backpay from 5 days after the date of the decision until the occurrence of one of four specified
conditions. See Transmarine, supra at 390.
JD–11–15
9
The purpose of accompanying the order to bargain with a limited backpay remedy is two-
fold: it is “designed both to make whole the employees for losses suffered as a result of the
violation and to recreate, in some practicable manner, a situation in which the parties’ bargaining
position is not entirely devoid of economic consequences for the Respondent.” Ibid. Making 5
employees whole is the lesser consideration of the two. “Secondly, and more importantly, the
Transmarine and other similar 8(a)(5) remedies are designed to restore at least some economic
inducement for an employer to bargain as the law requires.” O. L. Willis, Inc., 278 NLRB 203,
205 (1986). This recognizes that, in these situations, the employees represented by the union
have already been affected, and the urgency of the situation triggering the bargaining obligation 10
has passed.
Here, the Respondent violated its obligation to provide the Union with an opportunity to
engage in timely bargaining about the effects of its decision to close the inpatient obstetrics unit
and discontinue the HealthStart program. Twelve nurses were affected; six were terminated and 15
another six were reassigned. Michele L. Newsome, Renee J. Garrison, Betty J. Moore, Linda Carr-
Sibley, Jacqueline Engle, and Jacqueline Wood lost their jobs altogether. It is entirely possible that
there were financial losses associated with the reassignments of Silvia M. Drennan, Jill M.
Cottrell, Tina Kille, Esperanza Driver, Gail Kirkwood, and Maria R. Soone, such as loss of pay due
to decreased hours, for which they should be compensated. The Respondent’s unfair labor 20
practice thus deprived the Union of “an opportunity to bargain . . . at a time . . . when such
bargaining would have been meaningful in easing the hardship on employees” whose income
was being cut. Transmarine, supra at 389. Had the Respondent engaged in timely effects
bargaining, the Union may have been able to secure additional benefits for affected employees.
See Live Oak Skilled Care & Manor, 300 NLRB 1040, 1042 (1990) (“[I]t is reasonable to require 25
that ‘the employees whose statutory rights were invaded by reason of the Respondent’s unlawful
. . . action, and who may have suffered losses in consequences thereof, be reimbursed for such
losses until such time as the Respondent remedies its violation by doing what it should have done
in the first place.’”). Further, in Transmarine, the Board recognized that, in these circumstances,
merely ordering the Respondent to engage in effects bargaining would be a pro forma remedy. 30
Because the Respondent implemented the decision to close the inpatient obstetrics unit and
discontinue the HealthStart program, and thus relieved whatever pressures motivated it to do so,
“meaningful bargaining cannot be assured without restoring some measure of bargaining power
to the Union in relation to the issue.” Rochester Gas, supra at 508.
35
Therefore, I will order that the Respondent bargain collectively and in good faith with the
Union, on request, over the effects on bargaining unit employees of its decision to close its inpatient
obstetrics unit and the HealthStart program.
Further, I will order a limited backpay remedy designed to make affected bargaining unit 40
members whole for losses they suffered as a result of the Respondent’s failure to bargain over
the effects of its decision to close the inpatient obstetrics unit and discontinue the HealthStart
program. Specifically, for each affected bargaining unit member, Respondent shall pay backpay
at the rate of their normal wages from 5 days after the date of this Decision and Order until the
occurrence of the earliest of the following conditions: (1) the Respondent bargains to agreement 45
with the Union about the effects of the closure of the inpatient obstetrics unit and discontinuance
of the HealthStart program; (2) the parties reach a bona fide impasse in bargaining; (3) the Union
JD–11–15
10
fails to request bargaining within 5 business days after receipt of this Decision and Order, or to
commence negotiations within 5 days after receipt of Respondent’s notice of its desire to bargain
with the Union; or (4) the Union subsequently fails to bargain in good faith. However, in no
event shall this sum be less than the affected employees would have earned for a 2-week period
at the rate of their normal wages. See Smurfit-Stone Contractor Enterprises, 357 NLRB No. 5
144, slip op. at 5–6 (2011) (citing Transmarine Navigation Corp., supra).
Backpay shall be based on the earnings that the affected employees would normally have
received during the applicable period, and shall be computed in accordance with Ogle Protection
Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest at the rate 10
prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as
prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010). The Respondent shall
file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the appropriate
calendar quarters. The Respondent shall also compensate the affected employees for any adverse
tax consequences of receiving lump-sum backpay awards in a calendar year other than the year 15
in which the income would have been earned had the Act not been violated. Don Chavas, LLC
d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB No. 10 (2014).
Additionally, I will order the Respondent to furnish the Union with the information
requested in its January 15 and May 9, 2014 letters, with the exception of the first portion of May 20
9 request 4 as to the reasons for the unit closure.
The Union’s request that I order the Respondent to pay attorneys fees is denied. This
litigation is not frivolous, nor is there a scintilla of evidence of bad faith. Neither failure to
present witnesses nor a request for subpoenas at the conclusion of the General Counsel’s case is 25
indicative of such.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended10
30
ORDER
The Respondent, Salem Hospital Corporation, a/k/a the Memorial Hospital of Salem
County, Salem, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
35
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain with Health Professionals and Allied Employees (the
Union) regarding the effects of its decision to close the inpatient obstetrics unit and
discontinue the HealthStart program.40
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by failing and refusing to furnish the
Union with requested information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance

10 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–11–15
11
of its functions as the collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s unit
employees:.
All full-time, regular part-time and per diem Registered Nurses including Staff Nurses,
Case Managers, and Charge Nurses, employed by us at the Memorial Hospital of Salem 5
County located at Woodstown Road, Salem, New Jersey, excluding all other employees,
managers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.10
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain collectively with the Union over the effects of its decision to
close the inpatient obstetrics unit and discontinue the HealthStart program. 15
(b) Make whole its employees for any losses they may have suffered as a consequence of
the Respondent’s refusal to bargain over the effects of its decision to close the inpatient
obstetrics unit and discontinue the HealthStart program, as set forth in the remedy section of
this decision. 20
(c) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the information requested in the January 15
and May 9, 2014 letters, with the exception of the first portion of May 9 request 4.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional 25
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if
stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of
this Order.30
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Salem, New Jersey facility
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”11 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in 35
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 40
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,

11 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–11–15
12
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
January 15, 2014.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn 5
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.10
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 27, 2015
15
____________________
Susan A. Flynn
Administrative Law Judge20
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 refuse to bargain collectively with the Union, Health Professionals and Allied
Employees (HPAE), by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested information that is
relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining
representative of our employees in the following bargaining unit:
All full-time, regular part-time and per diem Registered Nurses including Staff Nurses,
Case Managers, and Charge Nurses, employed by us at the Memorial Hospital of Salem
County located at Woodstown Road, Salem, New Jersey, excluding all other employees,
managers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in the bargaining unit over the effects of our decision
to close the inpatient obstetrics unit and the HealthStart program.
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, on request, bargain with the Union over the effects of our decision to close the
inpatient obstetrics unit and the HealthStart program.
WE WILL furnish the Union the information requested in its January 15 and May 9, 2014 letters,
with the exception of May 9 request 4.
WE WILL make affected bargaining unit employees whole as set forth in Transmarine
Navigation Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968).
WE WILL file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the
appropriate calendar quarters.
WE WILL compensate affected bargaining unit employees for any adverse tax consequences of
receiving lump-sum backpay awards in a calendar year other than the year in which the income
would have been earned had the Act not been violated.
SALEM HOSPITAL CORPORATION,
A/K/A THE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
OF SALEM COUNTY
(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.
615 Chestnut Street, Suite 710, Philadelphia, PA 19106-4404
(215) 597-7601, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/04-CA-130032 or
by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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, (215) 597-5354.