Filed: May 08, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-8-2003 NLRB v. Lincoln Park Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 02-2591 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "NLRB v. Lincoln Park" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 562. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/562 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the Unit
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-8-2003 NLRB v. Lincoln Park Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 02-2591 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "NLRB v. Lincoln Park" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 562. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/562 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the Unite..
More
Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-8-2003
NLRB v. Lincoln Park
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-2591
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"NLRB v. Lincoln Park" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 562.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/562
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 02-2591
__________
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner
v.
LINCOLN PARK SUBACUTE AND
REHAB CENTER, INC., ONE AND
LINCOLN PARK SUBACUTE AND
REHAB CENTER, INC., TWO,
Respondent
__________
On Petition for Review/Enforcement
of a Decision and Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB Nos. 22-CA-22284, 22-CA-22528, and 22-CA-22643)
__________
Argued April 7, 2003
Before: BECKER , BARRY, and BRIGHT ** , Circuit Judges.
*
(Filed: May 8, 2003)
*
Judge Becker completed his term as Chief Judge on May 4, 2003.
**
Honorable Myron H. Bright, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
SHARON BLOCK, ESQUIRE
RUTH E. BURDICK, ESQUIRE (ARGUED)
ARTHUR F. ROSENFELD, ESQUIRE
JOHN E. HIGGINS, JR., ESQUIRE
JOHN H. FERGUSON, ESQUIRE
AILEEN A. ARMSTRONG, ESQUIRE
National Labor Relations Board
1099 14th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20570
Attorneys for Petitioner
RICHARD M. HOWARD, ESQUIRE (ARGUED)
CARMELO GRIMALDI, ESQUIRE
Kaufman, Schneider & Bianco, LLP
390 North Broadway
Jericho, New York 11753
Attorneys for Respondent
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
PER CURIAM.
Lincoln Park Subacute and Rehab Center ("Center") petitioned for review and to
set aside the National Labor Relations Board's ("Board") application to enforce an order
of the Board finding that the Center had violated the National Labor Relations Act
("Act") by discharging two employees based on their union activities. The Board also
2
ordered the Union to conduct a third union election based on the two violations of the
Act. We deny the petition to set aside the Board's order and grant its enforcement. 1
I. BACKGROUND
The Center operates a nursing home in Lincoln Park, New Jersey. Beginning in
1994, various unions have sought to represent the Center's employees. In 1997, District
1199J National Union of Hospital & Healthcare Employees, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
("Union") began organizing its own campaign to represent the employees. On June 13,
1997, the Union filed a petition for an election. The results of the election conducted on
August 8, 1997 ("August 1997 election") favored the Union. The Center objected to the
August 1997 election. On February 25, 1998, the Board set aside the August 1997
election and ordered a second election.
Prior to the second election, the Center terminated the employment of two
employees who had actively supported the unionization efforts. In January 1998, the
Center discharged David Aldorando, a porter, for failing to completely clean rooms. The
Center also terminated Dorothy Baines, a certified nursing assistant, in February 1998 for
patient neglect and verbal abuse of a patient's family member.
1
The Center has also asked this court to set aside the Board's instructions to
conduct a third election. At oral argument, the Center explained that it only asked this
court to set aside the third election if we determine that the Board erred in concluding that
the Center committed unfair labor practices. Because we determine that the Board did
not err, we need not address the issue of a third election. That issue remains open in other
proceedings before the Board.
3
On April 19, 1998, the Union conducted a second election, in which the employees
voted against the Union. On April 24, 1999, the Union filed objections to the second
election and claimed that the Center engaged in unfair labor practices regarding numerous
employees, including the termination of Aldorando and Baines. 2
Administrative Law Judge Raymond P. Green ("ALJ") heard testimony on the
claims. On July 30, 1999, the ALJ entered an order, dismissing the charges pertaining to
Baines. However, the ALJ determined that the Center had issued a per se unlawful
written warning to Aldorando in August 1997 for his tardiness for work. The ALJ
ordered a third election. Both parties filed exceptions with the Board.
On April 26, 2001, the Board remanded the matter back to the ALJ to determine
whether the August 1997 warning to Aldorando was unlawful on its face, to consider
whether additional disciplinary problems justified Aldorando's termination and to
consider more carefully the evidence concerning Baines' termination. On July 3, 2001,
the ALJ issued his supplemental findings as ordered by the Board. The ALJ found the
August 1997 warning unlawful because Aldorando provided advance notice to his
supervisor about his working as a union observer. In addition, the ALJ held that the
Center failed to establish that Baines would have been terminated for patient neglect and
verbal abuse regardless of her alleged union activity. The Board adopted the ALJ's
supplemental decision.
2
The other unfair labor practice claims are not before the court.
4
II. DISCUSSION
The Board's findings of fact are conclusive if they are supported by substantial
evidence on the record as a whole. See St. Margaret Mem'l Hosp. v. N.L.R.B., 991 F.2d
1146, 1151-52 (3d Cir. 1993). We accept the Board's factual determinations and
reasonable inferences derived from those determinations if they are supported by
substantial evidence. See Stardyne, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.,
41 F.3d 141, 151 (3d Cir. 1994).
Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Consolidated Edison
Co. of New York, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.,
305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). We will affirm the Board's
decision even if we might have reached a different conclusion on de novo review. See
Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B.,
340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951).
An employer commits an unfair labor practice when it discriminates "in regard to .
. . tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to . . . discourage
membership in any labor organization." 29 U.S.C. ยง 158(a)(3). In determining whether a
discharge of employees constitutes an unfair labor practice, the General Counsel bears the
initial burden of making a prima facie showing by a preponderance of the evidence that
protected conduct was a motivating factor in the employer's decision to discharge. Once
the General Counsel demonstrates a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to
demonstrate that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of protected
conduct by the employees. See Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 804 F.2d 808, 813 (3d
5
Cir. 1986). The Center has acknowledged that both Aldorando and Baines were active
supporters of the Union. Thus, the Center contends that it would have taken the same
action even if Aldorando and Baines had not been active in the union.
A. Aldorando
The Center argues that substantial evidence does not exist to support the Board's
decision regarding Aldorando because it terminated him for an independent non-
discriminatory reason, i.e., his failure to clean rooms. The Board determined that the
Center failed to demonstrate that it discharged other employees for comparable conduct.
The Center notes that during the hearings Aldorando's supervisor made a passing remark
about another porter that the Center terminated for failing to clean. In addition, the
Center argues that Aldorando had other disciplinary problems, including being absent
from his assigned floor. However, the Center had not issued any prior warning to
Aldorando for this conduct. Not until the period between the ordering of the second
election and the second election, did the Center choose to document Aldorando's
allegedly poor performance.
The Center further argues that it did not discriminate against other union
supporters. However, an employer cannot disprove its unlawful motive by arguing it
chose not to discriminate against other union supporters. See Union-Tribune Publ'g Co.
v. N.L.R.B., 1 F.3d 486, 492 n.3 (7th Cir. 1993). The Center has failed to meet its burden
6
of proof that they would have terminated Aldorando but for his union activity.
See Systems Mgmt., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 901 F.2d 297, 306 (3d Cir. 1990).
B. Baines
The Center also argues that the record is devoid of any evidence to show that it
unlawfully terminated Baines. The Center asserts that it proved its affirmative defense
that it would have terminated Baines in the absence of her union activities. Justifying its
termination of Baines, the Center relies on its finding that Baines committed patient
neglect and was disrespectful to a patient's family member.
The ALJ determined that the Center did not investigate thoroughly the claim of
neglect and verbal abuse. Further, the ALJ explained that Baines, an exemplary
employee, carried out her duties to the best of her abilities and with overall good
judgment. We previously have affirmed a finding of unlawful motivation where the
discharged employee had good evaluations. See N.L.R.B. v. S.E. Nichols-Dover, Inc.,
414 F.2d 561, 564 (3d Cir. 1969). The Center's arguments do not undermine the Board's
conclusion that Baines' termination was motivated by her union activity.
III. CONCLUSION
After consideration of the entire record, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the Board's findings and conclusions. The issues were hotly contested and close.
7
We cannot say that the Board erred. For the reasons set forth above, we deny the Center's
petition for review and we grant the Board's application for enforcement of its order. 3
3
The Board has not sought enforcement of its April 2, 2001 order, because it is
satisfied that the Center is currently complying with that order.
8
