SRM ALLIANCE HOSPITAL SERVICES d/b/a PETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 26, 2013

20-CA-088742 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

JD(SF)–15–13
Petaluma, California
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SRM ALLIANCE HOSPITAL SERVICES
d/b/a PETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL Case 20–CA–88742
Respondent,
and
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION/
NATIONAL NURSES UNITED
Charging Party.
Joseph D. Richardson, for the Acting General Counsel.
F. Curt Kirschner Jr., for the Respondent.
Brendan White, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD M. ETCHINGHAM, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried based on a
joint motion and stipulation of facts approved by me. California Nurses Association/National
Nurses United (the Charging Party or Union) filed the respective charge on September 5, 20121
and the General Counsel issued the complaint on November 7. The Respondent, SRM Alliance
Hospital Services d/b/a Petaluma Valley Hospital (Respondent or Petaluma), filed a timely
answer on November 20, denying all material allegations and setting forth affirmative defenses.
The Complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act) by failing to furnish information requested by the Union.
On the entire record and after considering the briefs filed by Acting General Counsel, the
Union, and the Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Jurisdiction
At all times material, Respondent, a nonprofit corporation, has been engaged in the
operation of hospitals providing acute medial care, including a facility located in Petaluma,
California, known as Petaluma Valley Hospital. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a

1 All dates are in 2012 unless otherwise indicated.
JD(SF)–15–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
healthcare institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. Respondent derives gross
revenues in excess of $250,000 and purchased and received goods or services valued at $5,000
from points outside of California. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The parties admit, and
I find, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
B. Background Facts
At all material times since about 1989, Petaluma has recognized the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative for the following unit:
All full-time and part-time Staff Nurses, Per Diem, Supplemental, and Charge Nurses,
excluding the classification of Home Health Nurse, Hospice Nurse, Home Health Case
Manager, Infection Control Nurse, Health Resource Specialist, Employee Health Nurse,
Nurse Educator, Staff Development Instructor, Patient Educator, Administrative
Coordinator, Department Manager, Relief Administrator Coordinator, and the Vice
President of Operations (the Unit).
The Union and Petaluma have entered into successive collective-bargaining agreements, the
most recent of which was effective from November 1, 2009, to December 1. (Stip. 1–2).2
Pursuant to a side–letter reopener agreement, the parties began renegotiating terms of their
agreement on September 6, 2011. (Stip. 9–10).
C. The Strike and the Replacement Period
The parties had not reached a new agreement by June 1, when the Union notified
Respondent that it would be engaging in a 1-day strike on June 13. At the same time, the Union
made an unconditional offer to return to work on behalf of all striking nurses on June 14 at 7
a.m. (Stip. 10; Exh. K3).
In response to the notice, on June 5th, via letter, Respondent informed the Union that it
had “contracted with a staffing agency to provide replacement nurses during the strike…” and
the “contract with the agency requires us to guarantee the temporary replacement nurses with a
minimum of five-days work…from 7:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 13th through 7:00 a.m. on
Monday, June 18th.” (Exh. L). In the same letter, Respondent notified the Union that all nurses
were being asked to report to work on June 13th at their normal start time, regardless of whether
or not they had been scheduled to work that day before the strike was called, and any nurse not
reporting on the 13th would be considered on strike and replaced for the 5-day period. (Exh. L).
Respondent, also through its June 5 letter, announced the implementation of the new
temporary staffing guidelines and a copy of the newly proposed temporary staffing guidelines
were attached to this letter. (Exh. L, p. 1) These new guidelines purportedly would supersede

2 All references to factual stipulations contained within the Joint Motion are noted as “Stip.” and the
number. All references to exhibits submitted with the Joint Motion are noted as “Exh.”
3 Please note that while I occasionally highlight the record with specific reference to testimony or
exhibits, there may be additional evidence in the record that supports a finding of fact or conclusion of
law.
JD(SF)–15–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
contractual policies and procedures, and included suspending contractual call-off procedures
through the 5-day replacement period. (Exh. M).
The unit employees engaged in a strike on June 13. (Stip. 15). Respondent did not allow
striking unit employees to return to work until June 18. (Stip. 16).
D. Union’s Requests for Information and Employer’s Responses
On June 5, the Union’s Labor Representative, Ian Selden, sent Respondent a letter
containing written information requests, including the following, designated in that request as
items 1, 2, 5, and 8(g) respectively:
1. “A true, correct and complete copy of the contract with the staffing agency referred to
in paragraph 1 of your June 5, 2012 letter … [Respondent contracted with to provide
temporary replacement nurses during the June 13th strike]”;
2. “Any and all documents relating in any way to the negotiation of the agreement
described in Item 1, above, including but not limited to correspondence, notes,
emails, drafts, proposals, counterproposals, memoranda and any other writing
between employees, agents and/or representatives of Petaluma Valley Hospital, St.
Joseph Health System, and the temporary staffing agency with whom the agreement
was made”; …
5. “Copies of any and all contracts Petaluma Valley Hospital or St. Joseph Health
System has entered into at any time within the past three years with any temporary
employment agency or nurse registry for the provision of Registered Nursing services
at its hospital in Petaluma”; …
8(g). “With respect to the unilaterally implemented “Temporary Staffing
Guidelines” policy please provide the following: …
The number of RN’s who were previously scheduled to work the 13th [of June,
before the Union notified Respondent of its intent to strike on that date].
In this letter, the Union explained that the information was needed “in order to evaluate
[Respondent’s] claim that ‘the contract with the agency requires us to guarantee replacement
nurses a minimum of five-days,’ and alleged that Respondent must therefore lock out nurses and
unilaterally suspend important contractual guarantees during that time.” (Exh. N, p. 1).
Subsequently, in an email dated June 8, Mr. Selden repeated the request and indicated that the
temporary staffing agency agreements needed to be reviewed to determine the validity of the
Hospital’s claim, referring to the 5-day work guarantee for temporary replacement nurses. (Exh.
R).
On June 12, Respondent’s counsel replied via letter to the Union’s information requests
by indicating it would respond to the Union’s information request only “if provided with a
statement establishing the relevance of the request and/or the reason for the overbroad, unduly
burdensome, or oppressive scope.” (Exh. U, p. 1). Respondent referred to the Union’s
explanation for the information as “generalized and insufficient,” and demanded “a legitimate
JD(SF)–15–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
explanation for [the Union’s] need for such information” before considering the Union’s request.
(Exh. U, p. 1–2).
In addition, the Respondent raised objections to each of the Union’s requests for
information. Respondent asserted a relevance objection to the first request by the Union because
it did not relate to the terms and conditions of employment of unit employees, and it sought
confidential and proprietary business and/or financial information. (Exh. U, p. 2). The same
objection was raised regarding the Union’s request number 2, in addition to overbroad or unduly
burdensome concerns, and because it “seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege and/or the work product and seeks legal conclusions and contentions.” (Exh. U, p. 2).
Respondent objected to the Union’s request number 5 due to relevance, over breadth and undue
burden, and confidentiality based on business or financial information. (Exh. U, p. 3). Lastly,
Respondent objected to the Union’s request 8(g) because the Temporary Staffing Guidelines had
not been implemented, and on the grounds that it was not relevant because it did not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment for unit employees. (Exh. U, p. 8). In addition to raising
objections for the Union’s request number 8(g), Respondent indicated it would “produce
responsive information within a reasonable time.” (Exh. U, p. 8). Despite these representations
the Respondent did not provide the information. (Stip. 24).4

On June 27, the Union responds to the Respondent’s objections by highlighting particular
provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement such as Article II, which states that “It is
understood that [unit] Nurses will not suffer any adverse impact when non-[unit] Nurses are
performing clinical nursing services.” Additionally, travelers and registry are placed at the
lowest level of priority in terms of scheduling preferences (Article VII, Section C), shift
cancellations (Article XXIII, Section C), and awarding extra work (Article XXV, Section B).
(Exh. V, p. 1).
In addition, the Union reminded Respondent that it had to offer an accommodation and
could not simply assert confidentiality concerns. Instead, the Union offered an accommodation
to enter into a nondisclosure agreement. The Union responded to the over breadth objections by
describing the requests as “specific and easy to understand, and for a limited period of time.”
The Union also offered to address any attorney-client privilege issues by redacting privileged
material. (Exh. V, p. 2).
On July 11, Respondent asked again for “individualized explanations as to the relevance”
of the Union’s requests and refused to respond unless the Union complied. (Exh. W, p. 1). The
Respondent rejected the Unions offers to enter into a confidentiality agreement and redact
privileged material. (Exh. W, p. 2–3).
On August 2, the Union requested the information again and explained that it was trying
to represent unit employees, who have a “contractual right to work their scheduled shifts, be
compensated for those shifts and not be displaced by replacement workers or management
personnel.” (Exh. X).

4 In the stipulated record, dated January 14, 2013, the Respondent asserted that “no documents exist that are
responsive to the Union’s request for contracts Respondent has entered into within the past three years for the
provision of temporary registered nursing services at Petaluma Valley.” (Stip. 25). However, this assertion was not
communicated to the Union in any previous correspondence.
JD(SF)–15–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
On August 10, in its final letter regarding the Union’s information requests, Respondent
again stated it needed “individualized explanations” of the relevance of each request. It asserted
that, because its replacement of striking nurses was not unlawful, the balance of the Union’s
requests, including requests numbers 1, 2, and 5 were “irrelevant to [the Union’s] role as the
representative of the bargaining unit employees.” (Ex. Y, p. 1–2). Respondent raised its
objections again to the information in Request No. 8(g), without providing information
responsive to the request as it had indicated it would do.
From June 5 until the present, Respondent believed that the Union intended to file an
unfair labor practice charge over the use of replacement nurses during the 5-day period. (Stip.
21). To date, the Union has not filed such a charge. (Stip. 22).
Respondent’s August 10th letter was the last communication between the parties
regarding the Union’s information request. (Stip. 19). To date, the Respondent has not provided
any of the requested information. (Stip. 24).
Analysis
A. The Relevance of the Requested Information is in Dispute
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act requires an employer to provide a union with relevant
information that is necessary to properly perform its duties as the exclusive bargaining
representative. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 152 (1956); NLRB v. Acme Industrial
Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435–436 (1967). Information regarding bargaining unit employee’s terms
and conditions of employment is “presumptively relevant” to the union’s collective-bargaining
duties and must be provided. Southern California Gas Co., 344 NLRB 231, 235 (2005).
1. The Information Sought in Request No. 1 Is Relevant and Must Be Produced
A request for information relating to employees outside the bargaining unit is not
considered presumptively relevant and places a burden on the union, “to demonstrate the
relevance of [the requested] information.” U.S. Testing Co., 160 F.3d 14, 19 (D.C. Cir. 1998),
enfd. 324 NLRB 854 (1997). The relevance standard for nonunit employees is described as
follows:
When [a] union asks for information which is not presumptively relevant, the showing by
the union must be more than a mere concoction of some general theory which explains
how the information would be useful to the union in determining if the employer has
committed some unknown contract violation…. Conversely, however, to require an
initial, burdensome showing by the union before it can gain access to information which
is necessary for it to determine if a violation has occurred defeats the very purpose of the
“liberal discovery standard” of relevance which is to be used. Balancing these two
conflicting propositions, the solution is to require some initial, but not overwhelming,
demonstration by the union that some violation is or has been taking place.
Newspaper Guild, Local 95 v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863, 868 (9th Cir. 1977). Thus, the Board
requires the Union to show that the information requested has “probable” or “potential”
JD(SF)–15–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
relevance to its statutory duties as the bargaining representative. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co.,
at 438.
The Union requested the contract between the temporary staffing agency and the Hospital
to verify whether the Respondent was obligated to employ the replacement nurses for a
minimum of 5 days. In Encino-Tarzana, 332 NLRB at 914 (2000), the Board adopted the
judge’s findings that the Respondent was entitled to suspend its “call off” procedure for 3 days
following a strike, in order to comply with its 4-day work guarantee to the replacement workers.
Petaluma cites Encino to assert that it was not obligated to furnish the information requested, but
wholly misses the importance of this case in understanding why the temporary staffing contract
is relevant to the Union’s bargaining duties. (R. Br. p. 20). Because a hospital has a right to
delay reinstatement of striking workers when it has guaranteed temporary replacement workers
minimum work days, the Union’s request for the temporary staffing contract is especially
relevant in determining whether the Respondent was contractually obligated to employ the
replacement workers for 5 days and delay the reinstatement of the strikers.
It is well established that a union is not required to accept at face value an employer’s
representations and is entitled to verify an employer’s assertions. Wallace Metal Products, Inc.,
244 NLRB 41 fn. 2 (1979). In Wallace, the Union requested to “see” the subcontracts of unit
work that the Respondent had subcontracted as a result of a strike and the Board held that the
Union was “entitled to see the actual contracts, to facilitate verification.” Id. Similarly, copies
of contracts for pulp bought on the market, a good that was previously made by unit employees,
were relevant and necessary to the Union’s “ability to assess and enforce the unit employee’s
recall rights.” Finch, Pruyn, & Co. Inc., 349 NLRB 270 (2007). The Board’s holding
emphasized that “the contracts would have shown the duration of the respondent’s commitment
to buy pulp.” Id. Thus, the Board found respondent to be on notice of the relevant purpose of
the union’s information request; “determining when the pulp mill workers could return to their
jobs.” Id. at 275–276.
Similar to Wallace and Finch, Pruyn, & Co. Inc., the information request at issue here
concerns a temporary staffing contract of unit work. Moreover, in line with the reasoning in
Wallace and Finch, Pruyn, & Co. Inc., the Union’s ability to see the contracts at issue would
demonstrate the duration of Respondent’s commitment to employ the temporary replacement
nurses. Furthermore, the Union put Respondent sufficiently on notice of the relevant purpose of
the information request; “the information was needed to evaluate the Respondent’s claim that the
contract with the agency guarantees a five-day minimum employment period.” (Exh. N, p.1)
Given the precedent, the Union’s explanations and facts, I find that the request for the
Temporary Nurse Staffing Contract is relevant and necessary to determine the validity of a 5-day
minimum employment period for replacement nurses. Therefore, I find that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
2. The Information Sought in Request Nos. 2 and 5 Is Relevant and Must Be Produced
Wallace and Finch similarly apply to the request for documents relating to the
negotiation of the temporary staffing agreement because obtaining this information would allow
the Union to verify whether the 5-day replacement period was required in order to engage the
services of the temporary staffing agency. In addition, the information is relevant because it
JD(SF)–15–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
would reveal whether the 5-day replacement period was a condition for the Respondent to enter
into the temporary staffing contract. Correspondence, notes, emails, proposals,
counterproposals, memoranda and any other writing between the Respondent and the staffing
agency would show the circumstances under which the parties negotiated the contract and
indicate which party proposed the replacement period and if shorter replacement periods were
available. Supplying this information would allow the Union to evaluate the Respondent’s claim
that it was obligated to guarantee the replacement workers a minimum of 5 days work.
The same reasoning would equally apply to the request for replacement employee
contracts between the Respondent and the Temporary Staffing Agency for the past 3 years.
These contracts would allow the Union to determine if the Respondent previously entered into
similar contracts and always agreed to a 5-day replacement period.
Furthermore, I find it disingenuous for the Respondent to mislead the Union into thinking
that the information in request no. 5 did exist by initially objecting to the information request on
various grounds (Ex. U, p. 3) and then waiting until the stipulated record was prepared on
January 14 to first assert that the information did not exist. (Stip. 25). An employer violates
section 8(a)(5) when it unreasonably delays notifying the union that the information sought does
not exist until the hearing. Mary Thompson Hosp. v. NLRB, 943 F.2d 741, 746 (7th Cir. 1991).
In Mary Thompson Hosp., the information requested concerned the employer’s affiliation
agreement with another hospital where the employer misled the union into believing that the
information existed and waited until trial to disclose that no such affiliation agreement existed
because the respondent was planning to close its hospital. Id. at 745–746. The union repeatedly
requested the affiliation agreement over a period of 3 months and respondent’s counsel made it
appear as though the information existed by indicating that he would review the agreement. Id.
at 744.
The situation here is analogous to the scenario in Mary Thompson Hosp. Id. at 745–746.
Here, the Union Representative, Ian Seldan made the first request for information in its June 5
letter sent to Debra Miller,vice president of human resources at Petaluma. (Exh. N, p. 1).
Subsequently, Mr. Seldan and Ms. Miller engaged in correspondence regarding all the requests
until June 11. (Exh. O–T). On June 12 Respondent’s counsel responded to the requests by
raising the objections described above (Exh. U, p. 3) and on July 11 repeated these objections,
although it did not reference specific requests when raising these. (Exh. W, p. 2). In its final
letter to the Union on August 10, Respondent’s counsel asserted that the information was
irrelevant. (Exh. Y, p. 1–2). Finally, on January 14, 2013 the Respondent changed its position it
had held in the previous 6 months to assert in an untimely manner that the information suddenly
did
JD(SF)–15–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
not exist.5 (Stip. 25). I find that it is too late now for the Respondent to contend that the
requested contracts do not exist. As a result, I find that the Respondent misled the Union into
believing that the information did in fact exist and violated the Act.
Finally, the temporary staffing agency information requests relate to the collective-
bargaining agreement so the employer must provide the information. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co.,
351 U.S. 149, 152–153 (1956); Southern California Gas Co., 344 NLRB 231, 235 (2005). In
relation to the Union’s concerns about bargaining unit employees being displaced by temporary
replacements, the Union pointed to Article II of the collective-bargaining agreement, to highlight
that unit nurses shall not suffer any adverse impact when nonunit nurses are performing clinical
nursing services and warned that the replacement period might violate the scheduling
preferences, shift cancellations, and awards of extra work. (Exh. V). Thus, the Union
emphasized that the information requests were part of its enforcement of the collective-
bargaining agreement. In subsequent correspondence with the Respondent, the Union continued
to emphasize that the information requested was “directly related to our right and obligation to
represent these bargaining unit employees” and pointed to the terms and conditions of the unit
employees as including a “contractual right to work their scheduled shifts, be compensated for
those shifts and not be displaced by replacement workers or management personnel.” (Ex. X).
Therefore, throughout its communications with the Respondent, the Union made it clear that the
information requested regarding the 5-day replacement period was relevant to its collective-
bargaining duties.
Based on the facts and the law, I find that both the documents relating to the negotiation
of the temporary staffing contract and the contracts with temporary employment agencies for the
past 3 years are relevant. Therefore, the information regarding the negotiation of the Temporary
Staffing Agreement should be provided by the Respondent and to the extent the contracts
between Respondent and Temporary Employment Agencies for the past 3 years is available, it
should also be provided. Moreover, I further find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act by failing to produce information responsive to Request Nos. 2 and 5 referenced
here.
3. The Information Sought in Request No. 8(g) Is Relevant and Must Be Produced
As a general rule, information regarding a bargaining unit employee’s wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment is presumptively relevant. Whitin Mach. Works, 108
NLRB 1537, 1541 (1954). More specifically, the information requested here, a unit employee’s
work schedule, is also presumptively relevant. Castle Hill Healthcare, 355 NLRB 1156, 1179
(2012). Furthermore, even if the work schedule is not presumptively relevant it is relevant for

5 The facts here are distinguishable from those in Raley’s Supermarkets, 349 NLRB 26, 28 (2007),
where the Board found that the General Counsel and the union had been timely notified well before
hearing that no responsive documents existed so that complaint allegations could easily be amended to
assert a new cause of action. Here, as stated above, it is questionable whether the requested information
exists, given that the Respondent made it appear as though the information did exist when it objected to
providing the information. As stated above, waiting until jointly stipulated facts are submitted in lieu of
hearing to change its position is playing fast and loose with the NLRB’s Rules and Regulations and is too
late for the Respondent to contend that the requested documents somehow do not exist.
JD(SF)–15–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
the purposes of determining the impact of Respondent’s mandatory call-in guidelines on unit
employees. Despite the Respondent’s objections, I find that the RN schedules are relevant.
I also reject Respondent’s argument that it was not obligated to provide the information
because the request was allegedly “intertwined with irrelevant requests.” The Respondent
attempts to assert the Union’s request for a list of RN’s scheduled to work before the strike is the
same as the Union’s request in Finch; a request for relevant and irrelevant information; the
names and prehire physical exam details of replacement workers. 349 NLRB 270, 277 fn. 28
(2007). However, the circumstances are not analogous because the only information requests at
issue here are the ones included in the complaint, therefore, I cannot assume that the Union’s
other requests are irrelevant simply because they are not included in the complaint. Furthermore,
the Respondent asserted that it would produce the list of RN’s and failed to do so. (Exh. U). As
a result, I further find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing to
produce information responsive to Request No. 8(g) referenced here.
B. Information Request and its Use in an Unfair Labor Practice Charge
The Respondent asserts that it is not obligated to furnish the information requested by the
Union because it has a “reasonable basis” to conclude that the information will be used in an
unfair labor practice charge.
The Respondent’s relies on Sahara Las Vegas Corp., where the Board held that the
respondent was not obligated to produce requested employee termination information because
the respondent could reasonably conclude that the union would file a related unfair labor practice
charge. 284 NLRB 337, 344 (1987), enfd., 886 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir. 1989). In Sahara, the
respondent refused to provide the union with information regarding the termination of unit
employees because it reasonably believed; based on pending unfair labor charges involving the
discharge of other employees; that a charge would likely follow regarding the terminated
employees for whom the information was requested. Ibid. The Board’s analysis was largely
based on the union previously filing numerous unfair labor practice charges relating to the
terminations of other employees and is therefore, factually distinguishable from this case. Ibid.
Here, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Union had previously filed unfair labor
practice charges concerning Petaluma’s use of temporary replacement nurses. To the contrary,
the Union has not filed such a charge. (Stip. 22).
Furthermore, I reject the Respondent’s argument that the Union did not make a
meaningful effort to establish the relevance of its requests. As stated above, the Union, upon
learning of the Respondent’s implementation of the Temporary Staffing Guidelines and 5-day
replacement period immediately requested information at issue in order to “evaluate [the
hospital’s] claim that the contract with the agency requires [the hospital] to guarantee
replacement nurses a minimum of five[] days.” (Exh. N). The Union continued to stress the
need for the information requests in subsequent correspondence with Respondent, “[t]o
determine whether there is any validity to the Hospital’s claim, we need to review these
agreements.” (Exh. R).
It is unreasonable for the Respondent to believe that the information requested was solely
for discovery purposes in such a charge. The Union was requesting the nonunit employee
JD(SF)–15–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
information in order to determine whether Respondent’s strike replacement guidelines and
practices violated the collective-bargaining agreement. (Stip. 23).
Finally, I further find that the Respondent made no showing, other than its bare
assertions, that the information it seeks to protect is confidential and proprietary. It did not
attempt to narrow the scope of the Union's request for information; nor did it discuss its
confidentiality concerns, or possible methods of alleviating them, with the Union or did the
Respondent present argument in its closing brief. In any event, our case law holds that the
Respondent’s failure to demonstrate that the requested materials contain sensitive and
confidential information prevents it from defeating the Union's requests for possibly relevant
information. See, e.g., Mission Foods, 345 NLRB 788, 791–792 (2005); Pfizer, Inc., 763 F.2d
887, 891 (7th Cir. 1985). Further, the Respondent has failed to establish any other legal basis for
not producing the requested information. See generally NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102
F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1996); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996).
No evidence was offered in support of these general boilerplate objections and, on that basis, I
find no loosely asserted objection warranted refusal to furnish the information
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent SRM Alliance Hospital Services d/b/a Petaluma Valley Hospital is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The California Nurses Association/National Nurses United is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing to furnish the information set forth in complaint paragraph 6(a),
the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act.
4. The Respondent's above-described unfair labor practice affects commerce within the
meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, it shall be ordered to produce
the information and post and mail a notice to employees attached as the Appendix.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended:6
ORDER
The Respondent, SRM Alliance Hospital Services d/b/a Petaluma Valley Hospital,
Petaluma, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall

6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order, as provided in Section 10.48 of the Rules, shall be adopted by the Board and
all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–15–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with California
Nurses Association/National Nurses United;
(a) By failing and refusing to furnish information set forth in complaint paragraph
6(a).
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Respondent shall take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) On request, furnish the requested information in its possession;
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Petaluma,
California, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”7 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees
by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, mail copies of the attached notice to
all bargaining unit employees who were employed by the Respondent at any time from the onset
of the unfair labor practices found in this case until the date of this decision. The notice shall be
mailed to the last known address of each of the employees after being signed by the
Respondents’ authorized representative.
(d) Notify the Regional Director within 21 days from the date of this Order what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 26, 2013
____________________
Gerald M. Etchingham
Administrative Law Judge

7 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.”
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
As full-time and part-time Staff Nurses, Per Diem, Supplemental, and Charge Nurses (the Unit), for
Petaluma Valley Hospital, you are represented by California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
(the Union). The Union requested that Petaluma Valley Hospital provide it with information about the
contracting of strike replacements and the number of RN’s scheduled to work before the June 13, 2012
strike. We did not provide this information and have been found to have violated our duty to act in good
faith when dealing the Union.
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to
post, mail, 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 in good faith with the Union by failing and refusing to
furnish information concerning contracting of strike replacements and the number of RN’s scheduled to
work before the June 13, 2012 strike in Petaluma, California.
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, furnish the information in our possession that was requested by the Union in its
letter of June 5, 2012.
SRM ALLIANCE HOSPITAL SERVICES
d/b/a PETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the
National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want
union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To
find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain
information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
901 Market St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103-1735
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00p.m.
(415) 356-5130.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
OF POSTING AND MUSTNOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THISNOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH
ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (415) 356-5130.