NLRB Issues Complaint Against St. Clare's Hospital in NJ Trail Date Set for July 20th


COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING


This Complaint and Notice of Hearing is based on a charge filed by LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SECURITY UNION LEOSU, LEOS-PBA (Charging Party). It is

issued pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et

seq., and Section 102.15 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board (the

Board) and alleges that PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES – SAINT CLARE’S, LLC – D/B/A

SAINT CLARE’S HOSPITAL (Respondent) has violated the Act as described below.


A Federal trial date has been set for July 20, 2021.

20210430 CPT.22-CA-267747
.pdf
Download PDF • 233KB

Saint Clare's Dover Hospital 400 West Blackwell Street

Dover, NJ 07801



On June 9, 2020, the Charging Party filed a representation petition in Case No. 22-RC-

261479 seeking to represent certain employees employed by Respondent at its Denville, Boonton

and Dover facilities.


8. Respondent, by the individuals named below, about the dates and at the locations

opposite their names, solicited employees’ grievances regarding their working conditions and

impliedly promised to remedy those grievances:



9. Respondent, by the individuals named below, about the dates and at the locations

opposite their names, promised to grant and adjust employees’ grievances regarding their working

conditions:




10. Respondent, by the individuals named below, about the dates and at the locations

opposite their names, promised to improve employees’ wages, hours and/or other terms and

conditions of employment:



11. (a) About June 4, June 15, June 25, and July 9, 2020, Respondent granted

employees benefits including increased wages, hazard pay and reduced transportation duties.


(b) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph 11(a)

because employees of Respondent assisted Charging Party and engaged in other protected,

concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.


12. (a) About June 15, 2020, Respondent discharged Security Supervisor Charlie

Kerr.


(b) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph 12(a) in

order to dissuade employees from voting for the Union.


13. About June 15, 2020, Respondent, by Karen Sosnowski, at Respondent’s Dover

facility, informed employees that Respondent had adjusted their grievances by discharging

Security Supervisor Charlie Kerr.


14. On an uncertain date within the six-month period prior to the filing of the charge,

Respondent, by Dominick Cantaldi, at Respondent’s Dover facility, interrogated its employees

about their union membership, activities, and sympathies, and the union membership, activities,

and sympathies of other employees.


15. On an uncertain date within the six-month period prior to the filing of the charge,

Respondent, by Brian Finestein, at Respondent’s Dover facility:


(a) Interrogated its employees about their union membership, activities, and

sympathies, and the union membership, activities, and sympathies of other employees; and


(b) Promised to adjust employee grievances.


16. (a) About October 8, 2020, Respondent discharged its employees Kyle

Dickerson, Robert Perez and Tom LaBell.


(b) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph 16(a)

because the named employees of Respondent assisted Charging Party and engaged in other

protected, concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.


17. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 12 through 15, inclusive,

Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the

rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.


18. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 11(a), 11(b), 16(a) and 16(b),

Respondent has been discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of

employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization in

violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.


19. The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect commerce within the

meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

LEOSU
Search By Tags
Follow "THIS JUST IN"
  • Facebook Basic Black
  • Twitter Basic Black
  • Google+ Basic Black