Scenic Hills Nursing Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 2009

353 N.L.R.B. 1022 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
353 NLRB No. 102
1022
Vrable III, Inc., d/b/a Scenic Hills Nursing Center
and District 1199, Health Care and Social Ser-
vice Union. Cases 9–CA–44146, 9–CA–44296, 9–
CA–44297, 9–CA–44320, 9–CA–44348, and 9–
CA–44349
February 27, 2009
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
On November 14, 2008, Administrative Law Judge
Bruce D. Rosenstein issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board1 has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions, and to adopt the recommended
Order.
The complaint allegations of misconduct apart from
the discharge of employee Amy Rupe were either re-
solved by settlement between the parties or dismissed by

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
2 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge’s credibil-
ity findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an ad-
ministrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
the judge without exception. Solely for the reasons below,
we adopt the judge’s dismissal of the allegation that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) by dis-
charging Rupe. 3
ORDER
The recommended Order of the administrative law
judge is adopted and the complaint is dismissed.

Naima R. Clarke, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Scott Salsbury, Esq., of Hudson, Ohio, and James Muckle, Esq.,
of Columbus, Ohio, for the Respondent Employer.
Carol K. Walters, of Langsville, Ohio, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BRUCE D. ROSENSTEIN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried before me on September 9–11, 2008,1 in Gallipolis,

3 We find that under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662
F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), the Respon-
dent carried its rebuttal burden of establishing that it would have termi-
nated Rupe for patient abuse, even absent her protected activities.
(Because the Respondent failed to except to the judge’s finding that the
General Counsel carried his initial burden under Wright Line of show-
ing that protected conduct was a motivating factor in the decision to
discharge Rupe, Chairman Liebman would treat that finding as conclu-
sive.) See, e.g., Inn at Fox Hollow, 352 NLRB 1072, 1075 fn. 12
(2008).
Member Schaumber finds that the General Counsel’s exceptions
placed the judge’s Wright Line analysis in issue. He disagrees with the
judge’s conclusion that the General Counsel made a “strong showing
that the Respondent was motivated by protected concerted or antiunion
considerations in effectuating” Rupe’s discharge. The judge found that
Diane Harless, the Respondent’s director of nursing, made the decision
to discharge Rupe and that Harless was unaware of Rupe’s union ac-
tivities. It is axiomatic that an employer’s decision to discharge an
employee cannot be found to have been motivated by the employee’s
union activities if the employer did not know of those activities. Amber
Foods, Inc., 338 NLRB 712, 714 (2002), citing Tomatek, Inc., 333
NLRB 1350, 1355 (2001). See also Mission Foods, 350 NLRB 336,
338 (2007). Accordingly, absent that critical element of knowledge,
Member Schaumber would find that the General Counsel failed to
satisfy her initial Wright Line burden. Id. However, Member Schaum-
ber agrees with the Chairman that even assuming arguendo that the
General Counsel satisfied her threshold burden under Wright Line, the
Respondent carried its rebuttal burden of showing that it would have
discharged Rupe even in the absence of her union activities.
The Respondent demonstrated that State law mandates the investiga-
tion of allegations of patient abuse, that its own policies also dictate
such an investigation, that corroborated instances of patient abuse have
consistently resulted in termination of participating employees, and that
it acted consistent with its policies in investigating and disciplining
Rupe. We further find that the General Counsel failed to present suffi-
cient evidence to establish that the Respondent’s asserted basis for
disciplining Rupe was a mere pretext for discrimination.
Because Rupe was discharged for committing patient abuse rather
than only failing to report abuse by another employee, it was, at most,
harmless error for the judge to attempt to limit the General Counsel’s
effort to show that the Respondent’s policy and practice did not man-
date discharge for failing to report another employee’s abusive conduct.
1 All dates are in 2008 unless otherwise indicated.
SCENIC HILLS NURSING CENTER 1023
Ohio, pursuant to a consolidated complaint and notice of hear-
ing in the subject case (complaint) issued on July 21, by the
Regional Director for Region 9 of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board). The underlying charges and amended
charges were filed on various dates in 2008 by District 1199,
Health Care and Social Service Union, SEIU (the Charging
Party or Union) alleging that Vrable III, Inc. d/b/a Scenic Hills
Nursing Center (the Respondent or Employer) has engaged in
certain violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed
a timely answer to the complaint denying that it had committed
any violations of the Act.
ISSUES
The complaint alleges that in March 2008, the Respondent
told employees that they would have already received a wage
increase if there was no Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, terminated employee Joanne Haskins in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, suspended and terminated
employees Lori Gravely and Amy Rupe in violation of Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act, and engaged in a number of
unilateral changes, bypassed the Union and failed and refused
to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.2
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer, a corporation with a place of business in
Bidwell, Ohio, is engaged in operating a nursing home and
providing in-patient medical care. The Employer, during the
past calendar year in conducting its operations, derived gross
revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchased and received
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside
the State of Ohio. The Respondent admits and I find that it is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

2 After the opening of the hearing on September 9, the undersigned
approved two nonboard settlements between the Charging Party and the
Respondent over the objection of the General Counsel. The first set-
tlement resolved the independent 8(a)(1) allegation alleged in par. 5 of
the complaint and the 8(a)(1) and (5) allegations alleged in paras. 10,
11(b), 12, and 13 of the complaint (ALJ Exh. 1). The second non-
board settlement resolved the 8(a)(1) and (3) allegation in par. 6(a) of
the complaint involving the termination of employee Joanne Haskins
(ALJ Exh. 3). Additionally, the undersigned approved an informal
board settlement agreement with a Notice to Employees executed by
the Charging Party and the Respondent that resolved para. 11(a) of the
complaint over the objection of the General Counsel (ALJ Exh. 2).
Accordingly, this decision will only address the 8(a)(1), (3), and (4)
allegations alleged in pars. 6(b), (c), and (e) and pars. 15 and 16 of the
complaint concerning the terminations of Gravely and Rupe.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent purchased the facility in November 2006
and since about April 14, 2007, the Union has been the desig-
nated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
comprised of all full and part-time employees, including all
nursing assistants, certified nursing assistants, dietary employ-
ees, including cooks, cook assistants, and dietary assistants,
laundry employees, housekeeping employees, activity assis-
tants, and restorative assistants. Respondent recognized the
Union as the representative of the employees in the unit by its
execution of a settlement agreement approved by the Regional
Director on June 11, 2007. While the parties have participated
in negotiations in an effort to reach their initial collective-
bargaining agreement, they have been unsuccessful to date and
no agreement has been reached.
Bill Potter held the position of executive director of Respon-
dent from December 17, 2007, to June 13, and Diana Harless
continues to serve as the director of nursing having been hired
on May 29, 2007. Carol Walters holds the position of organizer
on behalf of the Union and has serviced the employees in the
unit with various owners since 1996. Employees Gravely and
Rupe held the positions of state tested nursing assistants and
provided care for residents at the nursing center until their ter-
minations.
B. The 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) Allegations
The General Counsel alleges in paragraph 6 of the complaint
that the Respondent suspended employees Gravely and Rupe
on April 5, and then terminated them on April 7, because of
their support for the Union or because the Union filed an unfair
labor practice charge in Case 9–CA–44296 for which they gave
testimony to the Board.
1. The facts
On February 5, approximately 13 bargaining unit employees
including Gravely and Rupe participated in a candlelight vigil
to support the Union’s contract demands (GC Exh. 2). During
the course of the vigil, they saw Potter standing in the dining
room window and the administration headquarters window
looking out and observing those employees that participated in
the vigil.
On March 20, Gravely and Rupe saw Potter in the facility
and inquired when they were going to get their wage increases.
Potter replied, “that they would have already received their
wage increases if there was no union or if the employees had
got rid of the Union.”
On April 1, approximately 50 bargaining unit employees in-
cluding Gravely and Rupe signed a support petition on behalf
of the Union expressing their desires to be represented by the
Charging Party (GC Exh. 2). That petition was addressed and
mailed to Potter and was received at the Respondent on April 2
(GC Exh. 3).
On April 5, an incident occurred around 1:45 p.m. in which
two nursing home residents (referred to as KG and SW for
privacy considerations) alleged that Gravely and Rupe engaged
in patient abuse against KG. Both Gravely and Rupe worked
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1024
the daytime shift that day which ended at 2 p.m. Based on
instructions from Harless, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)
Jimmy Skidmore telephoned Gravely at home and apprised her
that she would be suspended due to the patient abuse allega-
tions along with her coworker Rupe. Skidmore informed
Gravely not to report to work the next day (Sunday, April 6).
Rupe learned of her suspension when she received a telephone
call from Gravely around 3 p.m. that day. Rupe immediately
telephoned LPN Theresa Taylor who confirmed that the allega-
tions were made and that she was suspended effective immedi-
ately and not to report for work on Sunday. Both Gravely and
Rupe contacted Harless who requested that both individuals
come to the facility on Monday morning around 8 a.m. for
separate meetings to discuss the allegations.
Gravely and Rupe reported to the facility on April 7, around
8 a.m. and met independently with Harless and Potter in his
office. Union Representative Sharon West participated in both
meetings on behalf of the employees. During the course of
each meeting, Harless informed Gravely and Rupe that they
were being suspended for verbal abuse, not turning the patient
over in an appropriate manner, and for cursing at KG. Both
Gravely and Rupe, who vehemently denied the accusations,
were permitted to prepare and submit statements to Harless that
summarized their position regarding what occurred on April 5,
while they were in the residents room responding to their call
light and trying to address the leakage in KG’s feeding tube
(GC Exhs. 5 and 7).
Both employees left the facility at the conclusion of their
meetings, and around 11 a.m. received separate telephone calls
from Harless to return to the facility around 1 p.m. Both em-
ployees informed Harless that they had pre-arranged appoint-
ments at that time but would come to the facility immediately
after they completed them. Neither Gravely or Rupe informed
Harless that the nature of their appointments involved meeting
with a Board agent to give an affidavit in support of the Un-
ion’s unfair labor practice charge in Case 9–CA–44296 nor did
Harless inquire about it.
When both Gravely and Rupe returned to the facility on
April 7, Harless informed them in the presence of Union Repre-
sentative West that the investigation had been completed and
based on the patient abuse allegations being substantiated, each
employee was being terminated. Both Gravely and Rupe re-
fused to sign the disciplinary action form confirming their ter-
minations (GC Exhs. 6 and 8).
Gravely and Rupe had cared for KG and SW for approxi-
mately 7 to 8 months before the patient abuse allegations and
neither reported any problems in working with them or any
complaints raised by the Respondent.
2. Discussion
In Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899
(1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), the Board
announced the following causation test in all cases alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(3) or violations of Section 8(a)(1)
turning on employer motivation. First, the General Counsel
must make a prima facie showing sufficient to support the in-
ference that protected conduct was a “motivating factor” in the
employer decision. On such a showing, the burden shifts to the
employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken
place even in the absence of the protected conduct. The United
States Supreme Court approved and adopted the Board’s
Wright Line test in NLRB v. Transportation Management
Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 399–403 (1983). In Manno Electric, 321
NLRB 278 fn. 12 (1996), the Board restated the test as follows.
The General Counsel has the burden to persuade that antiunion
sentiment was a substantial or motivating factor in the chal-
lenged employer decision. The burden of persuasion then shifts
to the employer to prove its affirmative defense that it would
have taken the same action even if the employee had not en-
gaged in the protected activity.
The General Counsel asserts that Gravely and Rupe engaged
in protected activity when they participated in the candlelight
vigil and were observed by Potter, were informed by Potter that
they would have received there wage increases already if there
was no Union or if the employees got rid of the Union, and
because they signed a petition addressed to Potter supporting
the Union. Additionally, Gravely and Rupe along with other
employees openly wore ribbons at work to express support for
the Union.
While I find that the General Counsel, based on the above
incidents, has made a strong showing that the Respondent was
motivated by protected concerted activity or antiunion consid-
erations in effectuating the terminations of Gravely and Rupe, I
conclude that the Employer would have taken the same action
against both employees even in the absence of their protected
activities for the following reasons.
First, it was Harless rather than Potter who made the decision
to suspend Gravely and Rupe on April 5, and after conducting
the mandatory investigation into the patient abuse allegations
independently made the decision to terminate both employees.
Potter’s role in the matter was essentially ministerial. He re-
viewed Harless’s recommendation and agreed with its content.
The evidence shows that Potter did not discuss the matter with
the residents nor did he speak with staff members before they
independently interviewed the residents who filed the patient
abuse allegations. Likewise, Potter did not ask questions or
participate orally in the two separate meetings held with
Gravely and Rupe that took place on April 7. Moreover, there
is no evidence on the record that Potter informed Harless that
he received the unfair labor practice charge on or before April
5, that alleged he coerced employees within the meaning of the
Act. In fact, Harless’s unrebutted testimony confirms that she
never saw a copy of the unfair labor practice charge nor did she
discuss it with Potter.
Second, while Gravely and Rupe were union members nei-
ther of them was particularly active, held union office/steward
positions or participated in collective-bargaining negotiations
with Potter or other Employer representatives.
Third, no member of the Respondent including Potter ever
interrogated Gravely or Rupe about their union activities or
disciplined any employee because of their participation in the
candlelight vigil or signing the support petition. Likewise, the
record shows that neither Gravely or Rupe collected signatures
for the support petition. While the support petition was re-
ceived by a secretary of Respondent on April 2 (GC Exh. 3),
SCENIC HILLS NURSING CENTER 1025
the General Counsel did not conclusively establish that Potter
saw or reviewed it prior to April 5.
Fourth, the investigation conducted by the Respondent into
the patient abuse allegation is mandated by the Ohio Depart-
ment of Health and Respondents handbook provisions (R.
Exhs. 2 and 3). In accordance with these requirements, staff
members accused of patient abuse must be suspended and re-
moved from the facility to prevent further contact with the resi-
dents. Additionally, if the allegations are substantiated, the
employees accused of patient abuse must be terminated. Fur-
ther support for this proposition was provided by the testimony
of Thelma Cohagen, an inspector for the Ohio Department of
Health, who visited the facility on May 28, and certified that
the Respondent adhered to all State and Federal requirements in
conducting the patient abuse investigation. In fact, no citation
was issued since the Respondent properly followed all man-
dated investigatory procedures.
With respect to the General Counsel’s alternative position
that Gravely and Rupe were terminated because they gave tes-
timony to the Board in Case 9–CA–44296, I reject this argu-
ment for the following reasons.
First and foremost, both Gravely and Rupe testified that they
had no knowledge that either Harless or Potter knew they met
with a Board agent on April 7, to give an affidavit in support of
the unfair labor practice charge. Indeed, when Harless tele-
phoned both Gravely and Rupe to return to the facility around
11 a.m. on April 7, they both informed her that they had a prior
commitment. Neither Gravely or Rupe informed Harless about
the nature of the appointment nor did Harless inquire about the
matter. Rather, Harless requested both employees to report to
the facility upon completion of there appointment. Likewise, I
find that the General Counsel did not conclusively establish that
Potter received the unfair labor practice charge in the mail or
reviewed it on or before April 5, the date both employees were
suspended. Moreover, Harless credibly testified that she never
saw a copy of the unfair labor practice charge since it was ad-
dressed to Potter (GC Exh. 1 (e)), and she never discussed it
with him. Lastly, as discussed above, Potter had no active roll
in suspending both employees or in the underlying patient
abuse investigation that ultimately led to Gravely and Rupe’s
terminations.
C. Disparate Treatment
In essence, the General Counsel argues that Gravely and
Rupe’s version of the facts should be credited rather than
Harless’s determination to rely on the independent interviews
conducted by four different staff members, the witness ac-
count,3 and her own independent interview of both residents.4

3 Rupe admitted that she did not discern that either KG or SW, the
two residents that lodged the patient abuse allegations, was impaired in
any way.
4 I note Harless’ unrebutted and credible testimony that she initiated
the investigation and directed the four staff members to interview each
resident separately. Moreover, it was Harless rather than Potter who
prepared and coordinated all of the paperwork including the staff mem-
bers interview summaries. She then forwarded the documents to the
Ohio Department of Health (R. Exh. 1). Similarly, Tracy Green the
Respondent’s director of clinical services, testified that if an employee
The General Counsel further argues that a ruling that I made
concerning its subpoena duces tecum requesting disciplinary
records for patient abuse allegations for the year 2007 denied it
due process and an opportunity to prove the violation. In this
regard, due primarily to the terminations occurring in April
2008, and the tenure of Potter for the limited period between
December 2007 and June 2008, I determined to limit any disci-
plinary action information for patient abuse allegations to the
year 2008.5 Despite this ruling, the Respondent at my request,
voluntarily provided numerous documents that it found in its
records that addressed patient abuse investigations for the years
2006 and 2007, including documentation for employee Patty
Wittman who the General Counsel alleged received more fa-
vorable treatment due to her having filed a decertification peti-
tion (GC Exh. 27).6
While the General Counsel is critical of the Respondent for
not calling Potter as a witness, the facts establish that the Gen-
eral Counsel alleged Potter as a supervisor/agent and could
have called Potter as an adverse witness but neglected to do so.
Moreover, the General Counsel admits that it did serve Potter
with a subpoena duces tecum at the facility but made no at-
tempt to inquire about his whereabouts or enforce it when it
arrived after he left their employ, an action it could have taken
if it deemed his presence was critical to their case in chief.
The General Counsel’s argument in posthearing brief that the
Respondent failed to interview all employees who worked dur-
ing the accused persons shift is also unavailing. To have inter-
viewed LPNs Skidmore and Taylor who did not personally
observe the patient abuse and only communicated by telephone
with Gravely and Rupe to inform them that they were being
suspended and should not report to work on Sunday, April 6,
was cumulative and not critical to the underlying issue of
whether patient abuse occurred. Likewise, arguing that the
Respondent did not call as witnesses other employees who had
interviewed the residents and had memorialized the results of
those discussions does not enhance their case since the General
Counsel made no attempt to subpoena these individuals.

is found to have committed patient abuse, the penalty is termination
without exception. The Respondent’s practice is to terminate if there
are two or more substantiating statements. In the subject case, there
was a witness statement in addition to four separate staff interview
reports that confirmed consistent stories regarding the patient abuse
allegations.
5 The General Counsel principally relies on the knowledge of Potter
about Gravely and Rupe’s union activities and his singular action in
effectuating their subsequent suspensions and terminations.
6 I have carefully reviewed both General Counsel and Respondent
exhibits that reflect patient abuse allegations that occurred at the facility
in 2007 and 2008. Each exhibit conclusively establishes that the Re-
spondent strictly followed Ohio Department of Health regulations and
its own internal guidelines when dealing with such cases. Indeed, I
specifically note that in two separate allegations of patent abuse occur-
ring in 2007 and 2008 in which terminations resulted, the Respondent
followed the identical procedures as in the subject case (GC Exh. 10
and R. Exh. 9). Contrary to the General Counsel, I find no disparate or
preferential treatment was granted to Wittman. Indeed, with respect to
the allegations lodged against her, the resident gave inconsistent testi-
mony and there was no corroborating witness. In the subject case, both
of these aspects are present.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1026
In summary, the General Counsel contends that the patient
abuse investigation was undertaken to mask the true reason for
Gravely and Rupe’s termination. I reject this argument as the
General Counsel did not conclusively establish that the patient
abuse investigation departed from past practice or that Harless’
decision to rely on corroborating evidence from neutral staff
members and a witness account was pretextual.7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Scenic Hills Nursing Center is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.

7 See, e.g., Yuker Construction Co., 335 NLRB 1072 (2001) (dis-
charge of employee based on mistaken belief does not constitute unfair
labor practice, as employer may discharge an employee for any reason,
whether or not it is just, so long as it is not for protected activity).
3. The Respondent did not engage in violations of Section
8(a)(1), (3), or (4) of the Act when it suspended and then termi-
nated employees Lori Gravely and Amy Rupe.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended8
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.

8 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 pur-
poses.