vs. ) CASE NO. 75-1349
) PERC NO. 8H-CA-752-0005
Respondent. )
For Petitioner: Jack L. McLean, Jr. Esquire
Gene L. Johnson Staff Attorney
Pursuant to a charge filed on or about February, 1975 1/ by Laborer's International Union Local #666, hereinafter referred to as the Union, a Complaint and Notice of Hearing was issued on October 10, alleging that the Respondent, during late April, engaged in unlawful interrogation of its employees with regard to their union sentiments, sympathies, desires and other protected activities; that Respondent informed supervisory employees that they could not join any employee organization; that Respondent threatened employees witch loss of employment and other reprisals for engaging in protected union activities; that Respondent through its agents, threatened employees with loss of benefits, unemployment and other reprisals for engaging in concerted protected activities; that Respondent, through its agents, harassed and intimidated employees during working time because of their union and other related activities all in violation of Florida Statutes, Sections 447.301(1),(2) and Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes. In its answer, Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
A hearing on said charges was held before the undersigned on October 27 & 28, in Titusville, Florida. At the conclusion of the hearing oral argument was waived and the Respondent requested and was afforded the opportunity to present a summary of the argument and testimony adduced at the hearing which has been received and duly considered by the undersigned. The parties were given leave to file briefs. A brief has been received from the Acting General Counsel of
PERC and the Respondent has elected by letter dated December 5, to submit its brief directly to the Commission. At the outset of the hearing, the General Counsel requested leave to orally amend the complaint to allege "other recently discovered unlawful and improper practices on the part of the Respondent" which was permitted over the Respondent's objection. The undersigned also permitted the Acting General Counsel to consolidate the instant unfair labor practice case with a pending representation case, PERC case no. 8H-RC-753-0007, the basis of which the General Counsel seeks as its remedy, a bargaining order due to the "pervasive and flagrant violations of Section 447, F.S., by the Respondent." 2/ See e.g., Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S.575, a case in which an employer was ordered to bargain because there was slight possibility of erasing the effects of the unfair practices and insuring a fair rerun election.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following findings and conclusions:
Sometime during 1974, the Union started an organizational campaign among Respondent's hospital employees. A number of employees signed authorization cards and attended union meetings. In due course, a representation petition was filed and as previously mentioned, further processing of that petition is being held in abeyance. The issues presented at the hearing are those set forth in the complaint and are set forth hereinafter in specific detail. Additionally, the Respondent requests issuance of a bargaining order due to the "pervasive and extensive unfair labor practices engaged in by the Respondent." 4/
James L. Muse, Administrator and an employee of the hospital for approximately 8 years testified that there are approximately 550 employees including approximately 25 licensed practical nurses (LPN's). He testified that there are also 18 department heads. Muse testified substantially as follows. Respondent gained knowledge of the Union's organizational drive during a board meeting during October of 1974, at which time Attorney Joe Moss, Respondent's Counsel, was present and Director Muse, who was in charge of the hospital's overall operations and decision making process. During the board meeting in October, Joe Tyler, the union's business agent and its attorney, Joe Moss, represented to those present that the Union represented a majority of the Respondent's employees and therefore requested recognition. Muse declined to
voluntarily recognize the Petitioner indicating that he would present that matter to the board for consideration. Muse, after being refreshed by an article which appeared in a local newspaper, recalled a statement that "the board better develop a collective bargaining policy, because if we don't we are going to have a Union in this hospital."
During the course of the hearing the General Counsel withdrew, with permission from the undersigned, paragraph #9 of the complaint which alleged that Ms. Foxx, a Nursing Supervisor, harassed and intimidated an employee because of her union sympathies, sentiments and desires. Muse kept abreast of the Respondent's policy towards unionism and was of the opinion that the Union should not be part of any health institution. Later during the October meeting, the board passed a resolution that the Union would not be voluntarily recognized. The board thereafter took a stand against unionization. Muse testified that he informed his department heads of certain do's and don'ts; that he wrote letters to employees about unionization and he first gained knowledge of the Union's organizational activities sometime during August of 1974. Muse intended to have all employees withdraw their authorization cards and was operating pursuant to the resolution adopted by the board in which a stand against unionization was adopted. Muse authored the cards which in essence were withdrawal cards that were presented to employees for execution. He spoke to his department heads about what disciplinary action they were to take if they witnessed employees distributing union cards throughout the hospital and warned them that those employees who were seen doing such would be reprimanded. The employees thereafter received a raise of approximately 7.2 percent and commencing February 1, 1975, they received a fully paid insurance plan which was better than the old plan. During October, 1974, a written grievance procedure was established and a committee was elected to hear grievances. Muse spoke to Housekeeping Director, Georgia Bullington and employees Gloria Walden; Seveda Mitchel and Wright, in his office where he and Respondent's counsel questioned them as to whether or not they received a subpoena to appear at this hearing. The employees were also asked "how they would vote if they were a union." Muse told the employees that he was aware of those who had received subpoenas and that they were not to come directly to City Hall but rather the Respondent would make arrangements to get them to the hearing when and if their testimony was needed. Muse drafted and mailed approximately 3 letters throughout the department. Muse knows Ken Milton and testified that it was common knowledge that Milton supported the Union. On cross examination Muse stated that he was aware of Ms. Bullington's union activities. According to him, he was unaware of which employees supported the Union. The Board regarded the Union's organizational drive as an "adversarial matter." Based on his examination of the financial records, employees had received raises for nine of the past eleven years and the average range was a 10 percent to 15 percent yearly increase. The adoption of the fully paid insurance plan was brought about due to the "good rates" that was quoted by the present insurance carrier, Lincoln National. He reiterated the fact that employees are not required to make contributions toward the premium for this plan. There was a new merit program which according to Muse, was basically the same plan that was utilized during the previous 3 or 4 years, but it was revamped to the extent that employees now have input into the plan.
When questioned about the meeting regarding the conference with those employees who had received subpoenas, Muse testified that the employees were told to testify "openly and candidly." Muse was generally aware of all activities in and around the plant due to the small nature of the operation. He gave Mr. Muldowney, an employee who was writing a thesis for an advanced degree, permission to conduct the survey which is received in evidence as General
Counsel's Exhibit #5. Muse was unaware of what the poll was designed to do. On recross he again reiterated that there was no change in the Respondent's merit plan or its grievance procedure. He did, however, indicate that employees have more input in the grievance procedure as it is now structured. The passage of the Administrative Procedure Act prompted the Respondent to adopt the existing grievance procedure.
Greg Joiner, a union member and an employee for approximately 1 year, was called and stated that he was told by Bud Shreve that employees would probably get burned; that if the Union got in more benefits would be taken away and that Ashley Smith, a painter, also told him that "some would probably get burned." He also testified that employees in his view would probably lose their sick leave if unionization was accomplished. On cross examination Joiner testified that he was not active in the union and that he was unaware that he would be called to testify until the hearing commenced.
Mary Norvell was called and testified as follows. She was employed through January, 1975, by the Respondent for a period of approximately 4-1/2 years in the medical records section. She signed a union authorization card during the organizational drive. There are approximately 16 employees in the medical records department and she talked to them against joining the Union because in her opinion "employees would not gain any benefits." The grievance committee was appointed in September, 1974. She did not recall any individual who had received a general wage increase during her employment. Since the Union commenced its organizational drive, birthday parties haven't been given by the Respondent as was its custom since September. She also recalled that newspaper articles and other anti-union letters were placed on the bulletin board. Employees Grafing, Lang, and Rogers told her that if employees signed cards, they would be discharged. She testified that after the grievance committee was formulated, the employer expressed the fact that it had an "open door policy." She also corroborated the heresay testimony of employees Land, Meharra and others in significant respects. She was interviewed by the Respondent for a job on the first day of the instant hearing.
William G. Tyler, the Charging Party's business representative for approximately two years testified that on or about June 16, 1974, he started signing employees and the union instituted an intense organizational campaign among the Respondent's blue collar employees which, in his opinion, total approximately 133. Tyler was able to obtain more than 150 cards. He corroborated Muse's testimony that he attempted to gain voluntary recognition in September and at that time he was rebuffed. Tyler entered an appearance on the hospital board's agenda following his futile attempt to obtain voluntary recognition and at that time the Respondent indicated through its resolution that it was in the employee's best interest to refrain from unionization.
Evelyn Shouse was employed by the Respondent from 1973 to 1974 as a transcriber. Her daughter, Rebecca Mayberry, also was employed and relocated sometime during mid 1974. Her daughter called her and was very upset because her pocketbook had been examined by Mr. Larry Coffman, a supervisor in the inhalation therapy department, to determine whether or not she had union authorization and/or representation cards in her possession. She testified that Coffman told her daughter that she must divulge the contents of her purse. When she refused, the purse was snatched and he (Coffman) removed the cards from her purse.
Kenneth Milton an employee in the maintenance department for approximately 2-1/2 years was called and testified as follows. His supervisor is
Everett McCallister and his assistant is Bud Shreve. He signed a union card and was very active in the Union's organizational drive by actively soliciting authorization cards. Milton stated that the organizational drive began during mid 1974. He was interrogated by Bud Shreve, with regard to his union sentiments and sympathies during working hours in October, 1974, in the maintenance shop. Shreve, according to Milton, told him that Russo informed him that employees would lose their benefits if the Union organized the hospital.
Shreve told him that a "union man had sabotaged a generator in the maintenance department." Two employees, Glen Wiggins and Larry Rollins, informed him that they would not honor their subpoenas. Harold Hughes, an electrician in the maintenance department and Dotty Christian, a switchboard employee, informed him that it was common knowledge that the Union was being blamed for the "sabotage" of the generator. Milton received approximately four letters authored by the Respondent and/or its agent Muse, during the union's organizational drive.
Three were received by mail and one was enclosed in his pay envelope. He received a poll in his mail during October of 1974, from Muldowney. In April 1975, during a discussion in the hall with Bertha Wright, the housekeeping department head, Georgia Bullington told Wright that if employees were "supporting the Union, they would be fired on the spot." He received a 7-1/2 percent raise last month. He received similar raises during the past two years. He previously paid a $59.00 monthly premium under the old health insurance plan whereas he now pays $23.00. Employees have recently been granted a credit union charter. He testified that deductions for savings bonds are now being withheld from their paycheck and previously such requests were rejected by the Employer's Personnel Director, Phil Smith. The payroll deduction plan for savings bonds became effective in early 1975. Employees were informed by letter that a grievance committee was being formulated. Smith related his reluctance to testify based on the fact that he felt that his "job was on the line." Bud Shreve asked Joiner what he testified to and what questions he was asked during his examination at this hearing. On cross examination he testified that he expects to receive no pay from the Union for his organizing efforts. He reiterated his earlier testimony that Bud Shreve informed him that he would lose all existing benefits if he joined the Union. Milton informed other employees that they would not lose benefits if they joined the Union. Rumors about the "sabotage" of the generator continued for approximately 5 days until the Respondent determined that lack of water caused the generator to overheat. He expressed his opinion that the reduction of insurance premiums was brought on by the increased organizing efforts.
Bertha White, who now occupies the position as the assistant housekeeper for the past 22 months and an employee for approximately 14 years was called and testified as follows. She signed a union card during February, 1975. Her supervisor is Georgia Bullington. She recalled receiving one letter through the mail and another requesting her to withdraw her union membership. She spoke with Mrs. Bullington regarding union activities during a monthly meeting in April. Mrs. Bullington inquired of her opinion of union activities and asked her about other employee's union activities. When questioned about these matters she gave no response. During April, 1975, she had a closed meeting with Mrs. Bullington for approximately 20 minutes and she was asked if she would quit if she knew of any supervisor who supported the Union and if she did that that supervisor would be fired immediately if his identity was disclosed to the Respondent. Mrs. Bullington informed her that wages would be cut to the minimum if unionization succeeded. She also testified about the meeting on Friday, October 24th, that she had with approximately 5 other employees which lasted approximately 20 minutes. She was asked by Respondent's agents whether or not the Acting General Counsel of PERC had contacted her and also inquired who had received subpoenas. During the meeting, Respondent's
Counsel discussed the union meetings and each person was asked separately about such meetings. She testified about a meeting which took place sometime during January or February, 1975, with Muse and the Respondent's attorney. She voiced her opinion that if employees were mistreated, the Union would come in. She was also questioned about her union sympathies and feelings toward PAT (reportedly an educational program). She in most instances corroborated the testimony of the earlier witnesses with regard to the fact that the Respondent's agents informed them to report directly to work. According to her, Respondent failed to advise them prior to the interrogation on the previous Friday that they did not have to stay for the questioning; that reprisals would not be taken against them; that the questioning was based on the Respondent's preparation of its defense for the upcoming hearing, or no other guidelines or assurances afforded them as is required by law. See e.g., Strukness Construction Corp., 65 LRRM 1385. On cross examination she testified that Mrs. Bullington asked her whether other employees had signed union cards. She denied that she was told by the Respondent's counsel to "tell the truth" at the meeting which was held the previous Friday. However, no one tried to directly influence her testimony.
She voiced her opinion that she considered Respondent's offer to provide transportation for them to the hearing to be an indirect influence on their testimony. She feared that she would be discharged. Sevada Mitchel, Supervisor of Housekeeping, is in charge of approximately 38 employees and she has been employed by the Respondent for approximately 12 years. She signed a union authorization card and also received 3 of 4 letters written by the Respondent during the union's organizational drive. She also received a request for withdrawal of her authorization card which she had signed for the charging party. She received one letter in January with her paycheck and she attended monthly meetings with Mrs. Bullington, the department head. On April 22, she attended a meeting which was called by Mrs. Bullington and during that meeting Mrs. Bullington asked if she knew of employees who supported the union and if so, and their identity was revealed to her, that they would be fired. Mrs.
Bullington told her that she was "100 percent along with Mr. Muse." She felt intimidated by being called to the above referenced meeting. As previously stated, she was also present at the meeting called by Mr. Muse and Respondent's attorney, wherein certain employees were asked whether or not they received subpoenas. Approximately 8 employees worked directly under her and they are situated, that is, their work stations are on two floors in the hospital. 5/
THE RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE
James Muse, who previously testified, was recalled by the Respondent and testified as follows. The pay raises were not prompted by union activities but were granted based on a resolution by the Respondent. He has personal contact with Bud Shreve on a daily basis. He issued guidelines to other department heads, however, he did not instruct them as to what to say or what not to say. This is in conflict with his later testimony that he furnished managerial employees with a prepared list of "Do's" and "Don'ts" during the organizing drive. In this respect, his testimony is not credited. He denied giving any instructions that employees were to be discriminated against or otherwise be subject to employment practices violative of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447. Shreve gave all department heads the same instructions and he voiced his opinion that employees did not need a Union because "the hospital board takes care of them." All employees were given cards which in essence represents that the employees, by execution of that card, were seeking to withdraw their authorization for the Union to represent them. A sample of those cards have been received into evidence and marked for identification as General Counsel's Exhibit 4 and made a part hereof by reference. He denied telling McCallister that employees were to be fired for engaging in protected
activities. Shreve stated that the employees were polled regarding the filing of the RC petition filed herein. Petitioner's Exhibit 5 which was introduced and received is a copy of the Board's policy regarding unionism. The "open door policy" was implemented in approximately 1974. According to Muse, at no time did the Respondent condone any of the allegations regarding the fact that the Union was responsible for the "sabotage of the generator." He denied that the employees' pay envelopes contained anti-union or pro-management letters. Shreve reiterated the fact that better insurance coverage was in no way related to the employees organizational and/or union related activities. On cross examination he testified that he took no steps to rectify rumors regarding the alleged loss of jobs based on employees participation in union or other related protected activities. He took no steps to threaten Mrs. Bullington or to otherwise thwart any alleged activity on her part regarding union activities. He commenced the Respondent's letter writing campaign sometime in mid October 1975, and indicated that another letter would be mailed in the next day or two.
Everett S. McCallister, an engineer and superintendent for approximately 2 years is presently in charge of the maintenance department. He supervises Bud Shreve, Rick Joiner and Kenneth Milton (all of whom previously testified) and they report directly to him or Ashley Smith. He denied talking to Milton about restraining his union activities or questioning him on whether he supported the Union. Shreve denied making statements that would, in his opinion, tend to threaten or otherwise interrogate or coerce employees regarding their union sympathies and/or sentiments. Shreve also denied that any statements were made by the Respondent regarding the Union's responsibility for sabotage of the generator. On cross examination he admitted having spoken to Joiner regarding the loss of benefits should the union succeed in its organizational efforts. In this regard, Shreve made misleading statements regarding loss of benefits if unionization occurred. Accordingly, his testimony in this respect is not credited.
Rachel Terry, administrative secretary to Mr. Muse, pulled all the personnel files and constructed figures which indicated that raises had been given annually from 1968 through 1975. (See Respondent's Exhibit 3) She identified General Counsel's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 (which were letters mailed to employees in separate envelopes) and stated that at no time was any anti-union letter incorporated in employees' pay checks. According to her testimony, the true merit review system was instituted in October 1974.
Harry Hughes, an employee for approximately nine years, repaired the generator. Ashley W. Smith, also employed for approximately 3 years in the maintenance department, denied the statements of Joiner that he was interrogated regarding his union or other related activities.
Larry Coffman, the present cardio-pulmonary department head and an employee for approximately 10 years testified that he directly supervises 8 employees. It was brought to his attention that Becky Shouse, who previously testified, was soliciting on behalf of the Union during company time. He was informed of this by Doretha Glover, another employee. Coffman testified that although solicitation for the United Fund is carried out at the plant, such solicitation is sanctioned by the Respondent and has been for a number of years.
John E. Russo, Respondent's assistant administrator since 1971, testified that the Respondent told the various department heads to remain neutral regarding the Union's organizational drive and he categorically denied that Respondent, through its agents, threatened employees with loss of benefits, employment or other reprisals for taking part in union or other protected
activities. He did however indicate that it appeared "funny" that the generator lost its water. He denied that Shreve told Milton that the employees would lose benefits should the Union's organizational drive become successful. He admitted that he heard rumors that the Union sabotaged the generator, however, he talked to Muse and it was discussed that the generator possibly failed due to a mechanical difficulty. Russo denied that any plan existed to undermine the union and he testified that he had no knowledge as to the board meeting in which the article, which was discussed appeared in the Star Advocate on August 16, 1974.
At this juncture of the proceeding, the Respondent's counsel called the Acting General Counsel to testify and the undersigned denied this request and suggested that he make a proffer as to what he expected to elicit by calling the Assistant General Counsel. In his proffer, Respondent's counsel testified that the Assistant General Counsel was assigned to investigate the case and that he was biased. He testified that he questioned the Acting General Counsel as to whether a consent election should be entered and he thereafter made an appointment with the Acting General Counsel's secretary, which was verified, and that when he made the trip to Tallahassee, the Acting General Counsel was unavailable. He made a request to view the signed authorization cards and the Acting General Counsel's secretary declined his request. He asked that she reduce that declination to writing and she refused. According to his argument, the Acting General Counsel has expressed an attitude of hostility and that when the Acting General Counsel requested cooperation from him, he questioned whether or not the Acting General Counsel's investigation in fact revealed or otherwise tended to establish that the allegations were substantial enough to justify issuance of a complaint. He offered to cooperate with the Acting General Counsel if he was shown that a prima facie case in fact existed here. He stated that this was done on or about February 26, 1975, and thereafter the Acting General Counsel aligned himself with the Charging Party.
Muse did not recall any employees consulting with him about withdrawing from the Union. The department heads and supervisors approached him regarding withdrawals and to his knowledge, 10 or more employees wanted to withdraw. Tyler testified that Helen Hampton had not signed a union card.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
It must be remembered that the parties stipulated that Bud Shreve, James Muse, James Russo and Georgia Bullington were agents and/or representatives of the Respondent during times material. The effect of that stipulation brought the action of those individuals within the language of Section 447.501(1), F.S., as it related to prohibiting "public employers or their agents or representatives from committing certain unfair labor practices." It was also noted that these employees occupy the positions of Hospital Administrator, Assistant Hospital Administrator, Assistant Building Administrator, and the Director of Housekeeping. Based on examination of these employees' job duties, it is clear that these employees are principal agents of the Respondent who are working in a strategic position so as to effectively translate to rank and file employees, the policies and desires of management. The evidence revealed that the above employees, due to the organizational structure of the hospital have an intimate knowledge of most events and rumors occurring within the hospital. The record in this case is replete with instances wherein the above employees, during the course of their working time, polled, interrogated and made statements to employees regarding the effects of unionization. Such polling and interrogations were generally in accord with the anti-union position adopted by the Respondent at the early stages of the
Charging Party's organizational activity in the hospital. Upon hearing of the action by its agents, the Respondent took no steps to repudiate such acts. This being the status of the record, said acts are now chargeable to the Respondent.
The evidence also revealed that the employer received inquiries from employees regarding the procedure of withdrawing a previously executed authorization card. In response to such, the Employer printed up preaddressed post cards which in essence stated that the "undersigned individual's authorization card is being withdrawn" and such were distributed to all employees in the proposed bargaining unit. The distribution was not limited to those employees who had requested assistance from the employer. In examining the conduct of an employer who assists an employee with the preparation and withdrawal of previously executed authorization cards, one must look to determine whether the assistance was ministerial in nature; whether it was requested by the employee and finally whether the conduct of the employer manifested a position of neutrality. See for example N.L.R.B. v. Kit Manufacturing Company, 355 F.2d 166(C.A. 9, 1964), 56 L.R.R.M. 2988. In the instant case, the evidence indicates that the employer's actions exceeded the permissible bounds. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that such action constitutes a violation of Section 447.501(1)(a)
The evidence also reveals that the Respondent's agents made statements to employees which in essence meant that employees would be penalized for voting in favor of union representation. Examples of such conduct are statements by Shreve and Russo that "if the union was voted in, the employees would lose all benefits" and "wages would be reduced." The undersigned is of the opinion that these expressions are unprotected by Section 447.501(3) and constitute a violation of Section 447.501(1)(a). The clear implication of such statements was that the employer would deal more harshly with employees through a union than it otherwise would and that the unionization of the hospital would automatically result in the loss of benefits. See, Stumpf Motor Company 85LRRM 1113 (1974). Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that such statements violate Section 447.501(1)(a).
In addition to the interrogation and polling of employees above referred to, the evidence also reveals that the employer interrogated potential witnesses of the hearing in this matter. An employer may rid itself of further unfair labor practice charges in defense for an upcoming trial by following certain guidelines. Generally, the employer must communicate to the employee the purpose of the questioning; insure that no reprisals will take place; obtain participation on a voluntary basis; conduct the questioning in an atmosphere free of hostility to union organization and by confining the questions to the necessities of preparing a defense to imminent litigation. The employer who transgresses these boundaries, loses the benefit of such privileges. See Johnny's Poultry Company, 55 LRRM 1403 (1964). The record in this case is replete with examples of illegal interrogation and/or polling of the employees by the employer's agents. For example, Ricky Joiner, the day after giving testimony in this hearing, was interrogated by employer's representative Bud Shreve, about his testimony. In April 1975, Georgia Bullington interrogated Bertha Wright regarding her union activities and other employee's union activities. None of the safeguards referred to above were followed in this procedure. Three days prior to the commencement of the unfair labor practice trial, Ms. Savada Mitchell was called to the board room of the hospital across from Mr. Muse's office. While Ms. Mitchell was not interrogated, she witnessed the questioning of Mrs. Wright regarding her union sympathies as well as that of other employees. This meeting lasted approximately 20 minutes and the employer failed to state the purpose of the meeting or give any assurances of non-
reprisal. It should also be noted that the employer, upon hearing of these interrogations and of rumors of such, failed to take any appropriate action to repudiate any of the action of its representatives and/or agents. The undersigned therefore concludes that such actions constitute violations of Section 447.501(1)(a).
On the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
At all times material herein Respondent has been engaged in the operation of a hospital and is a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2), Florida Statutes.
At all times material herein the Charging Party has been a labor organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.203(10).
The labor organization is properly registered within the meaning of Florida Statutes and PERC Rules and Regulations.
By the acts and policies described above, the Respondent did interfere with, restrain, and coerce, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 447.301(1),(2), of the Act, and did thereby engage in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting the orderly and uninterrupted operations and functions of government within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a) of the Act.
The activities of the Respondent described above, occurring in connection with the operation of Respondent described above, have a close, intimate and substantial relationship to the orderly and uninterrupted operations and functions of government, and tend to lead to labor disputes and to destroy the harmonious and cooperative relationship between the Respondent and its employees.
The acts of the Respondent described above constitute unfair labor practices affecting the orderly and uninterrupted operations and functions of government within the meaning of Sections 447.501(1)(a) and 447.201 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and the entire record in this proceeding, I hereby issue the following recommended:
RECOMMENDATION
Respondent, Jess Parrish Memorial Hospital, its officers, agents, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and Desist from:
DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.
JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
1/ All dates, unless otherwise noted are in 1975.
2/ The RC Petition was filed during February of this year and pursuant to a Commission meeting in October, further processing of the petition is being held in abeyance.
3/ The parties also stipulate and I find that James L. Muse, Hospital Administrator, Mr. Russo, Assistant Hospital Administrator, Bud Shreve, Assistant Building Administrator, Ms. Georgia Bullington, Director of Housekeeping, Ms. Foxx, Operating Room Nurse Supervisor were and are managerial employees within the meaning of F.S., Chapter 447.231(4), and at all times material were acting on Respondent's behalf.
4/ This request is now moot since the undersigned subsequently issued an Order which in essence granted the severance of the representation case from the unfair labor practice case.
5/ At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case in chief, the Respondent moved the hearing officer to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the General Counsel had failed to prove or set forth facts that would indicate that a prima facie case had been established. That motion was denied for reasons stated infra.
Jack L. McLean, Jr., Esquire Acting General Counsel
Gene L. Johnson, Esquire Staff Attorney
James L. Muse, Administrator Jess Parrish Memorial Hospital 951 North Washington Avenue Titusville, Florida 32780
Local No. 666
Attention: William G. Tyler
