spectrum labor complaint

8/7/2019 Spectrum Labor Complaint

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spectrum-labor-complaint 1/7

.54 P.01/07

UNITED STATES OF AMERICABEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

REGION 34

SPECTRUM HEALTHCARE DERBY, LLC 0/B/ABIRMINGHAM HEALTH CENTER; SPECTRUMHEALTHCARE WATERBRIDGE LLC DIBIAHILLTOP HEALTH CENTER; SPECTRUMHEALTHCARE WINSTED, LLC 0/B/A LAUREL HILLHEALTH CARE, SPECTRUM HEALTHCAREHARTFORD, LLC ID/B/A PARK PLACE HEALTHCENTER, AND SPECTRUM HEALTHCARE Case No. 34-CA-12794WATERBRIDGEI LLC

and

NEW ENGLAND HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEESUNION DISTRICT 1199, SEIU

COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OEHEARING

New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, herein caiJed the

Union, has charged that Birmingham Health Center, herein described by its correct

name, Spectrum Heafthcare Derby, LLC d/b/a Birmingham Health Center, herein called

Respondent BHC; Hilltop Health Center, herein described by its correct name,

Spectrum Healthcare Waterbridge, LLC d/b/a Hilltop Health Center, herein called

Respondent HHC; Laurel Hill Health Center, herein described by its correct name,

Spectrum Healthcare Winsteci LLC d/b/a Laurel Hill Health Care, herein called

Respondent LHHC; Park Place Heafth Center, herein described by its correct name,

Spectrum Healthcare Hartford, LLC d/b/a Park Place Health Center, herein Respondent

PPHC; and Spectrum l-Iealthcare Inc., herein described by its correct name7 Spectrum

HealthcareWaterbridge, LLC, herein called Respondent SH, and herein collectively

called Respondent, have been engaging in further unfair labor practices as set forth in

the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act.

Based thereon, the Acting General Counsel, by the undersigned~ pursuant to Section

10(b) of the Act and Section 102.15 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations1 issues this

Complaint and Notice of Hearing and alleges as follows:



i4 H.I&~/~?

1(a) The charge in Case No . 34-CA-12794 was filed by the Union on

September 10 , 2010, and a copy was served on Respondent by facsimile transmission

and regular mail on September 14, 2010.

(b) The amended charge in Case No. 34-CA-12794 was filed by the Union on

October 28, 2010, and a copy is being served on Respondent concurrently with this

Complaint and Notice of Hearing.

2. At all material times, Respondent BHC, with an office and place of

business located in Derby, Connecticut, herein called its Derby facility; Respondent

HHC, with an office and place of business located in Ansonia, Connecticut, herein

called its Ansonia facility; Respondent LHHC, with an office and place of business

located in Winsted, Connecticut, herein called its Winsted facility; Respondent PPHC,

with an office and place of business located in Hartford, Connecticut, heroin called its

Hartford facility; and Respondent SH, with an office and place of business located in

Vernon, Connecticut, herein called its Vernon facility, have been engaged in the

operation of a nursing home providing skilled nursing care,

3(a) During the 12-month period ending September 30, 2010, Respondent

BHC, in conducting its business operations described above in paragraph 2, derived

gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchased and received at its Derby facilitygoods valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points located outside the State of

Connecticut;

(b) During the 12-month period ending September 30, 2010, Respondent

HHC, in conducting its business operations described above in paragraph 2, derived

gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchased and received at its Ansonia

facility goods valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points located outside the State of

Connecticut;(c) During the 12-month period ending September 30, 2010, Respondent

LHHC, in conducting its business operations described above in paragraph 2, derived

gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchased and received at its Wiristed

facility goods valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points located outside the State of

Connecticut;

2



~q

(d) During the 12-month period ending September 30, 2010, Respondent

PPHC, in conducting its business operations described above in paragraph 2, derived

gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchased and received at its Hartford

facility goods valued in excess of $5000 directly from points located outside the State of

Connecticut;

(e ) During the 12-month period ending September 30, 2010. Respondent SH,

in conducting its business operations described above in paragraph 2, derived gross

revenues in excess of $1 00)000 and purchased and received at i ts Vernon facility goods

valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points located outside the State of Connecticut;

4. At all material times. Respondent BHC, Respondent HHC, Respondent

LHHC, Respondent PPiic, and Respondent SH have each been an employer engaged

in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act, arid a health

care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.

5. At all material times, Respondent BHC, Respondent HHC, Respondent

LHHC, Respondent PPHC, and Respondent SH, have been affiliated business

enteiprises with common officers, ownership, directors, management, and supervision;

have administered a common labor policy; have shared common premises and

facilities; have provided services for and made sales to each other; have interchangedpersonnel with each other; and have held themselves out to the public as a single-

integrated business enterprise.

6, Based on its operations described above in paragraph 5, Respondent

BHC, Respondent l-IHC, Respondent LHF-IC, Respondent PPHC, and Respondent SH,

hereinafter called Respondent, constitute a single-integrated business enterprise and a

single employer within the meaning of the Act.

7. At all material times, the Union has been a labor organization within themeaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

8. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth

Opposite their respective names, and have been supervisors of RespondentWithin the

meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of Respondent within the meaning of

Section 2(13) of the Act:

3



r.FOq/~J(

Howard Dickstejn --- President and CEOBrian Dickstein --- VP1 OperationsSean Murphy -— CFODavid Kelly -— Corporate Director of Human ResourcesLyndsey Brenes Administrator, BHCStanley DeCosta -— Administrator1 HHCJessica Carusone --- Administrator, LHHCDoug Melanson —- Administrator, PPHC

9. Respondent and the Union have entered into separate successive

collective-bargaining agreements relating to Respondent’s Derby, Ansonia, Winsted,

and Hartford facilities, the most recent of which were effective by their terms from April

1, 2005 through March 15 , 2009, which each provide in Article I for the recognition of

the Union as the exclusive representative of Respondent’s employees employed at:

(a) the Derby facility, herein called the Birmingham nurse’s Unit:

All full-time and regular part time Registered Nurses and LicensedPractical Nurses;

(b) the Derby facility, herein called the Birmingham service andmaintenance Unit:

All full-time and regular part time service and maintenanceemployees;

(c) the Ansonia facility, herein called the Hilltop Unit:

All full-time and all regular part-time service and maintenanceemployees;

(d) the Winsted facility, herein called the Laurel Hill Unit:

All full-time and all regular part-time service and maintenanceemployees;

(e) the Hartford facility, herein called the Park Place Unit:Al! full-time and regular part-time service and maintenanceemployees, cooks, and Licensed Practice Nurses (LPNs).

10 . At all material times, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been

the designated exclusive collective bargaining representative of the Birmingham nurse’s

and service and maintenance Units, and the Hilltop, Laurel Hill, and Park Place Units.

Ii. From about April 15, 2010 to about August 31 , 2010, certain employees,

represented by the Union and employed at Respondent’s Derby, Ansonia, Winsteci and

4



.~J’-f r.F~J~fr~J1

Hartford facilities in the Units described in paragraph 9 above ceased work concertedly

and engaged in a strike.

12 . The strike described above in paragraph 11 was caused by Respondent’s

unfair labor practices.

13. On or about August 31, 2010, by letter, the Union on behalf of the

employees) who had engaged in the strike described above in paragraph 11 , made an

unconditional offer to return to their former positions of employment: the Birmingham

nurse’s and service and maintenance Units, and the Hilltop, Laurel Hill, and Park Place

Units,

14 . Since on or about August 31 , 2010, Respondent, by letter dated

September 2, 2010, has failed and refused to reinstate the employees described in

paragraph 11 and 13 above to their former positions of employment.

15, Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph 14

because the above employees joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted

activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in those activities.

16 . By the conduct described above in paragraphs 14 and 15 , Respondent

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

employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organizationin violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3 ) of the Act.

17 . The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect

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

WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged above

in paragraph 14 , the Acting General Counsel seeks an Order requiring that the

Respondent pay interest on any back pay or other monetary awards on a compounded,

quarterly basis. The Acting General Counsel further seeks all other relief as may be justand proper to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged.

ANSWER REQUIREMENT

Respondent is notified that, pursuant to Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the

Board’s Rules and Regulations, it must file an answer to the consolidated complaint.

The answer must be raceived bythis office on or beforeNovember 12, 2010. or

~çstmarkod~~ or bofore November 10. 2010. Respondent should file an original and

four copies of the answer with this office and serve a copy of the answer on each of the

5



,~)‘_, _.~~JDfl~Jr

other parties.

An answer may also be filed electronically by using the E-Filing system on the

Agency’s website. In order to file an answer electronically, access the Agency’s website

at http;I/www,nIrb~ov click on E-Gov, then dick on the E-FiIing link on the pull-down

menu. Click on the “File Documents” button under “Regional, Subregional and Resident

Offices” and then follow the directions. The responsibility for the receipt and usability of

the answer rests exclusively upon the sender. A. failure to timeiy fi!e the answer will not

be excused an the basis that the transmission could not be apcomDlished because the

Agenqy’s website was off-line, or unavailable for some other reason. When an answer is

f~d electronically, an original and four oaper copies must .be sent to this office so that it

is received no later than three (3) business days after the date Qf electronic filing.

Service of the answer on each of the other parties must still be accomplished by means

allowed under the Board’s Rules and Regulations. The answer may j~ be filed by

facsimile transmission, If no answer is filed, the Board may find, pursuant to a Motion

for Default Judgment, that the allegations in the complaint are true.

NOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on January 25, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., at the A.A.

Ribicoff Federal Building, 450 Main Street, Suite 410, Hartford, Connecticut, and onconsecutive days thereafter until concluded, a hearing will be conducted before an

administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing,

Respondent and any other party to this proceeding have the right to appear and present

testimony regarding the allegations in this consolidated complaint. The procedures to

be foflowed at the hearing are described in the attached Form NLRB-4668. The

procedure to request a postponement of the hearing is described in the attached Form

NLRB-4338,Dated at Hartford, Connecticut, this 2gth day of October, 2010.

-~-~.J ‘~zJohn~, Cotter, Acting Regional birectorNational Labor Relations BoardRegion 34

Attachments

6



I ‘I l_I \J_J .J’-f r.tir’ur

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS SOARD

AMENDED CHARGE AGAINST EMPLOYERiNSTRUCTIONSFile an arininni an.d A .nnIa.. .e skI.. I..~ ..a.l. .11 RegIonal Director for the raglan In which the allenad unfair labor oceurrnd or Is aecnrrlnq,

1. EMPLOYER AGAINST WHOM CHARGE IS BROUt~FiT

FORM_EXEMPT UNDER 44 U.S.C. 3512[i~ase Date Filed

~ 34-CA-I2794 10/28/10

a. Name of Ethployer —_ b. NiAmber of workers employed -

Spectrum Care dlb/a Birmingham Health Center, Hilltop Health Center, Laurel Hill 400Health Center, Park Place Health Center and Spectrum Hêalthcare Waterbridge, LLC.

c, Address (stiát, city, state, ZIP code) —. d. Employer Repiâsentatlve a Telephone No .

27 Naek Road Brian Dickstein, CEO (880) 871-5454P.O. Cox 2417 FacsImile No.Vernon, CT 06066 (860) 871-5757f. Type of Establishment ((aejory; mine, wholesaler, etc.) a Identify principal product or service

Nursing Home - Health Careb.The above-named employers have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of section 6(a), subsections (1)arid (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, and these unfaIr labor practices are unfair practices affecting commerce within the meaning ofthe Act.

2, Basis of the Charge (set forth a dear and concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair labor practices)

Since August 31, 2010 and continuing, the Employer has unlawfully refused to reinstate approximately 330 unfairlabor practice strikers employed at the Employers four nursing home facilities following the Union’s unconditionaloffer to return to work.

Because of the likelihood that the Employer’s serious and pervasive unfair labor practices will cause irreparabledamage pending the processing of this case, the Union requests that the General Counsel seek immediate 100)injunctive relief.

By the above and other acts , t he ebove~named employer has Interfered wi th , res tra ined, and ooercad employees in the exarcl$~ of t he r igh ts guaranteed in Section 7 o f t heAct

3. Full name of party f iling charge (if labor organization, give full name, including local name and number) -

NEW ENLAND HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES UNION, DISTRICT 1199, SEIU

4a. Address (~treet and number, city, itate and ZIP code) — 4b, Telephone No.

(860) 549-119977 Huyshope Avenue, 1~ Floor Facsimile

Hartford, CT 06106 . -- @60) 251-6049

5. Fu ll name of national or International labor organization of which it han affilIate or constitueñfunlt ( to be f il led in when charge is tiledby a labor organization.

Service Employees International Union

6. DECLARA11QWI declare that I have read the above charge and that the statements are true to the best of my knowledge and bel ief .

By~ c . Title Union AttorneySignature of representative or person making charge (Kevin A. Creane) -

Telephone No .Address: 92 Cherry Street (203) 578-2419 Date

Milford, CT 06460 - ic/a; /1 a

WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS ON THIS CHARGE CAN SE PUNISHED BY FINE AND 1MPRISONIVIENT (U .S . CODE, TITLE 16, SECTION ~OO1)

:c Bc!.

FORM NLRB-501

TOTAL P.07