NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,419, CEDAR GROVE MANOR CONVALESCENT CENTER and 1115 NURSING HOME AND HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION et al., (July 29, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Jul 29, 1994)

CEDAR GROVE MANOR CONVALESCENT CENTER and 1115 NURSING HOME AND HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION et al.

314 NLRB No. 106.Case Nos. 22-CA-17729, -17749 and 29-CB-7911. July 29, 1994 Robert T. Snyder, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Stephens and Devaney.

Bernard S. Mintz, for General Counsel, Region 22. Elaine Robinson and Thomas M. Maher, Brooklyn, New York, for General Counsel, Region 29. Peter A. Schneider, Martin Gringer and Andrea C. Rothman (Kaufman, Naness, Schneider & Rosensweig, P.C.), Melville, New York, for Respondent Employer. Richard M. Greenspan, P.C., White Plains, New York, for Charging Party in Cases 29-CA-17729 and 22-CA-17749 and Respondent Union in Case 29-CB-7911. Richard Kirschner, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor in Cases 22-CA-17729 and -17749 and for Charging Party in Case 29-CB-7911.

Assistance to Unions--Checkoff of Dues and Initiation Fees--Rival Union Activity.--By continuing to deduct dues from the pay of its employees and remitting the sums collected to a union that formerly represented the employees, at a time when a rival union was the certified employee representative, an employer rendered unlawful assistance to the union. Although the employer contested the NLRB’s certification of the rival union, that certification remained valid, rendering the continued deduction and remission of dues to the former representative improper. Section 8(a)(2).

Back reference: ¶3560.053.

Refusal to Bargain--Refusal to Recognize Union--Former Union Recognized.--By refusing to recognize a union that had been selected by its employees and certified by the NLRB as the employees’ bargaining representative, an employer violated its bargaining duty. The employer claimed that the Board’s certification was improper and continued to recognize and support a rival union that had previously represented its employees. Section 8(a)(5).

Back reference: ¶3082.144.

Unilateral Changes by Employer--Fact Finding--Work Conditions.--On the facts, an employer unlawfully made unilateral changes to an employee savings plan, life insurance and retirement benefits, without notice to its employees’ union. Section 8(a)(5).

Union Restraint and Coercion--Rival Organizational Activity--Violence to Rival.--By threatening a business agent union with bodily harm, in order to dissuade the agent from continuing to give testimony to the NLRB, a union that formerly represented unit employees unlawfully restrained and coerced the employees. The threats were made known to employees of the incumbent union and tended to inhibit the utilization of the Board’s services and their continued support of their designated and certified union. Section 8(b)(1)(A).

Back reference: ¶4350.382.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief [1] and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, [2] findings, [3] and conclusions [4] and to adopt the recommended Order.

¹	We deny the Respondent Union’s request that we reject the Intervenor’s exceptions owing to an assertedly defective method of service of a copy of these exceptions on the Respondent Union. The Intervenor has filed an opposition to this request. We find that the method of service was not so deficient in the circumstances as to warrant their rejection.
²	The Respondent Union contends that the judge committed prejudicial error by sequestering its designated representative, Raul Aldrich, because he would be called to testify. Contrary to this contention, we find that because the judge applied his sequestration ruling even-handedly to the designated representatives of each Respondent, it was not prejudicial to the Respondent Union.
³	Exceptions have been filed to some of the judge’s credibility findings, including his crediting witness Steve Jarema’s voice identification of Raul Aldrich as the caller who made telephonic threats to Jarema. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidences us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. [19 LC ¶66,308] 118 F.2d 382 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. Accordingly, we deny the Respondent Union’s motion that the Board obtain the transcription tape of Aldrich’s testimony at the hearing to make an independent evaluation of Jarema’s identification of Aldrich’s speaking voice. We also find without merit the Respondent Union’s allegations of bias and prejudice on the part of the judge. On our consideration of the record and the decision, we perceive no evidence that the judge prejudged the case, made prejudicial rulings, or demonstrated bias against any party in his analysis or discussions of the evidence.
⁴	In adopting the judge’s finding of an 8(b)(1)(A) violation, we do not rely on his consideration of the Board’s decision in Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, [1992-93 CCH NLRB ¶17,749] 310 NLRB 579 (1993). Chairman Gould agrees with the judge’s findings that nothing in the record justified revoking the certification of the Respondent Union as the bargaining agent for the Cedar Grove employees and, therefore, finds it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s additional reasons for rejecting the Respondent Employer’s affirmative defense to the complaint.

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,419, CEDAR GROVE MANOR CONVALESCENT CENTER and 1115 NURSING HOME AND HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION et al., (July 29, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Jul 29, 1994)

CEDAR GROVE MANOR CONVALESCENT CENTER and 1115 NURSING HOME AND HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION et al.

314 NLRB No. 106.Case Nos. 22-CA-17729, -17749 and 29-CB-7911. July 29, 1994 Robert T. Snyder, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Stephens and Devaney.

Back reference: ¶3560.053.

Back reference: ¶3082.144.

Back reference: ¶4350.382.

From Text of Board’s Decision

¹	We deny the Respondent Union’s request that we reject the Intervenor’s exceptions owing to an assertedly defective method of service of a copy of these exceptions on the Respondent Union. The Intervenor has filed an opposition to this request. We find that the method of service was not so deficient in the circumstances as to warrant their rejection.
²	The Respondent Union contends that the judge committed prejudicial error by sequestering its designated representative, Raul Aldrich, because he would be called to testify. Contrary to this contention, we find that because the judge applied his sequestration ruling even-handedly to the designated representatives of each Respondent, it was not prejudicial to the Respondent Union.
³	Exceptions have been filed to some of the judge’s credibility findings, including his crediting witness Steve Jarema’s voice identification of Raul Aldrich as the caller who made telephonic threats to Jarema. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidences us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. [19 LC ¶66,308] 118 F.2d 382 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. Accordingly, we deny the Respondent Union’s motion that the Board obtain the transcription tape of Aldrich’s testimony at the hearing to make an independent evaluation of Jarema’s identification of Aldrich’s speaking voice. We also find without merit the Respondent Union’s allegations of bias and prejudice on the part of the judge. On our consideration of the record and the decision, we perceive no evidence that the judge prejudged the case, made prejudicial rulings, or demonstrated bias against any party in his analysis or discussions of the evidence.
⁴	In adopting the judge’s finding of an 8(b)(1)(A) violation, we do not rely on his consideration of the Board’s decision in Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, [1992-93 CCH NLRB ¶17,749] 310 NLRB 579 (1993). Chairman Gould agrees with the judge’s findings that nothing in the record justified revoking the certification of the Respondent Union as the bargaining agent for the Cedar Grove employees and, therefore, finds it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s additional reasons for rejecting the Respondent Employer’s affirmative defense to the complaint.

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,419, CEDAR GROVE MANOR CONVALESCENT CENTER and 1115 NURSING HOME AND HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION et al., (July 29, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Jul 29, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

Footnotes

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,419, CEDAR GROVE MANOR CONVALESCENT CENTER and 1115 NURSING HOME AND HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION et al., (July 29, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Jul 29, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

Footnotes