Opinion ID: 660848
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Discharge of Kitty Richardson

Text: 31 Finally, the Hospital discharged RN Katherine (Kitty) Richardson on March 8, 1990. Richardson, who had twenty-seven years' experience as an RN, sixteen of those years at Fairfax, worked as a certified staff RN in the hemodialysis unit at the Hospital. She was also the sole nurse in her department certified in nephrology. During her tenure with Fairfax, Richardson received consistently excellent evaluations which often rated her performance as superior and outstanding. After being strongly recommended for a promotion to the Clinical Ladder, her promotion to Clinician III had been approved. 32 In her sixteen years with the Hospital, Richardson had been neither disciplined nor counseled. Fairfax had nominated her for Outstanding Nurse of the Year in 1988. That nomination, which praised her public speaking, her positive influence on her peers, and her role as a patient advocate, went to the Virginia State Nurses Association. Besides retaining membership on the Hospital's protocol committee, Richardson did extensive teaching at the Hospital in the areas of hemodialysis and nephrology. 33 In the spring of 1989, Richardson announced her support for the Union in a Union flyer distributed outside the Hospital. The flyer contained a prounion quote from Richardson and a photograph. She then joined the FPNA's steering committee, a group of approximately 20 nurses active in the organizing efforts from various departments in the Hospital. As a member of the steering committee, Richardson spoke about the Union, attended meetings, and distributed flyers outside the Hospital. Mastorovich, Toni Ardabell--the Director of Medical, Psychiatric and Dialysis Nursing--and Kathleen Garrity--the Director of Critical Care and Surgical Nursing--observed Richardson while she was leafletting. 34 On the morning of March 7, 1990, while on a break in the break room, Richardson, fellow nurse Linda Ensign, and their supervisory nursing coordinator Terri Booth, were discussing an antiunion poster the Hospital had posted. Janet Steuber, another nurse, overheard parts of the conversation. 35 The poster in question, which had been posted in the break room and in other locations throughout the Hospital, such as the nurses' bathroom, was part of the Hospital's series of posters on Why Fairfax Nurses Oppose the Union. This particular poster detailed an ugly event in which an operating room nurse allegedly told a patient that he would not receive good medical care because his wife refused to support the Union. 36 In the conversation between Richardson and Booth in the break room, Richardson told Booth that she doubted the truthfulness of the poster and stated that in all her years of nursing she had never seen conduct like that described in the poster. Booth responded that she believed the poster. Richardson then questioned Booth about the reasons for hanging the poster in the nurses' bathroom in addition to posting it on the bulletin board. Booth replied that the Hospital owned the entire facility and could post its material wherever it wished. Richardson responded that prounion nurses should also be able to post their notices in support of the union. 37 The break was nearing an end. When Richardson and Ensign got up to leave, Booth commented to them that the Hospital's posting was unpleasant for everyone and that the situation would probably worsen. Booth stated, You better get used to it because there will be a lot more of these things coming. (J.A. 67). Richardson replied that Booth could expect retaliation. Id. During the conversation, Richardson's voice was firm and a little louder than ordinary conversation, but she did not scream or approach Booth, raise her arms, or anything. (J.A. 1234-35). 38 That same morning, Booth informed Ardabell about her conversation with Richardson and told her that Richardson had threatened her with retaliation. After assuring Booth that she would discuss the matter with Mastorovich, Ardabell told Booth that she would get back in touch with her. The same day, Mastorovich met first with both Booth and Ardabell together, then with Ardabell separately. Although Mastorovich concurred with Ardabell's recommendation that Richardson be fired, Mastorovich instructed Ardabell to speak with Ensign. 39 Later that afternoon, Ensign met with Ardabell and Booth. Ensign described the entire conversation and emphasized that the whole discussion was about an antiunion poster. She stressed that Richardson never yelled during the encounter. Moreover, she commented that she did not believe that Richardson had used the wordretaliation to threaten Booth. In fact, Ensign stated that she did not believe that Richardson would threaten anyone. She added that she did not think Richardson had threatened Booth. 40 During the meeting, Ardabell composed a statement for Ensign's signature. At first, Ensign refused to sign the statement because she disagreed that it accurately reflected the events of the Richardson/Booth conversation. Eventually, Ensign signed a revised statement because, she contends, she felt pressured to sign something and did not feel free to leave the room until she did so. 9 41 Ardabell again met with Mastorovich after meeting with Ensign. Ardabell incorrectly told Mastorovich that Ensign had confirmed Booth's version of the events. Mastorovich, agreeing with Ardabell's continued recommendation of termination, approved Richardson's termination without speaking to Richardson. In making her decision to discharge Richardson, however, Mastorovich did consult with Charles Barnett, the Hospital's Chief Operating Officer, Brent Miller, Vice-President for Human Resources, and the Hospital's legal counsel. Barnett and Mastorovich decided to terminate Richardson the next day for threatening Booth with unspecified retaliation. 42 When Richardson arrived at work the next day, March 8, 1990, at around 8:00 a.m., she changed into her work clothes. Ardabell located her and escorted Richardson from her locker to the office of Lou Segner, Manager of Employee Relations and Training. Ardabell informed Richardson that Booth had approached her the day before and had accused Richardson of threatening her. After Richardson related her recollection of the breakroom conversation with Booth and Ensign, Ardabell stated that Richardson had threatened Booth with retaliation. Richardson then rolled her eyes and attempted to explain that she had used the word retaliation in reference to other postings that the Union might make. Responding that Booth had a different impression of what had transpired, Ardabell discharged Richardson. 43 Segner then requested Richardson to turn over her identification badge and the keys to her unit. Ardabell and Segner accompanied Richardson back to her unit to clean out her locker and escorted her out of the Hospital. 44 At around 9:00 a.m., Ardabell made an announcement to the staff nurses in Richardson's unit that Richardson had been terminated. Several moments later, Steuber told Ardabell that if Richardson had been fired for the comment she had heard her make to Booth the previous day, Steuber did not consider the statement either threatening or a basis for discharge. Ardabell made no response. 45 The Hospital's disciplinary system, established in 1986, was in effect at the time that Richardson was discharged. The policy set forth three categories of employee violations. Category A violations 10 mandate the use of the positive discipline system. For Category A violations, the steps in the process are: (1) factfinding, (2) oral reminder, (3) written reminder, (4) decision-making leave, and (5) planned discharge. 46 The only violations which can result in immediate discharge are Category B violations. These include theft, use or possession of alcohol or controlled substances while on duty, assault and battery, possession of a dangerous weapon, abuse in caring for a patient, and unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Even for a Category B offense, however, an employee must first be placed on suspension without pay while the Hospital conducts an investigation before the employee can be discharged. 47 Category C violations, which include reduced attendance or productivity deriving from physical or mental disability, result in appropriate referral for treatment or assistance. 48 The consolidated complaint in this proceeding alleges that, when District of Columbia Nurses Association, American Nurses Association (Union), began to organize the registered nurses employed by Fairfax Hospital, the Hospital instituted or began to enforce no solicitation, no distribution, no access, no buttons, no posting, and mailbox rules, some disparately, in order to prevent and frustrate the Union from organizing. The Union was the charging party before the Board. The complaint alleged that the above-referenced rules violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(a)(1). In an order dated June 4, 1992, the ALJ found that the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by adopting and disparately enforcing its bulletin board posting rules, mailbox policies, and employee button rules. 49 The ALJ also held that the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating and selectively enforcing the off-duty access rule; by promulgating and selectively enforcing the solicitation and distribution rule; and by engaging in surveillance of employees' Union activities. As to the discharge of RN Katherine Richardson, the ALJ determined that the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(a)(3) and (1)) by terminating her because of her Union activities. The Hospital appealed all of the above findings to the Board. 50 On January 29, 1993, the Board, adopting the ALJ's order, affirmed the decision. The Board's order required the Hospital to rescind disciplinary warnings issued to numerous employees because of their Union activities; to rescind its rules prohibiting distribution of literature in employee mailboxes and the access of off-duty employees to Hospital property; to rescind its revised personal appearance policy to the extent that it prohibits Hospital employees from wearing Union insignia on their uniforms; to offer employee Richardson immediate and full reinstatement to her former position, and to make her whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits she suffered as a result of the discrimination against her; and to post an appropriate notice indicating compliance with the above order. 51 The Hospital appeals the Board's order as to the off-duty access rule; the solicitation and distribution rule; the Hospital's surveillance activities; and the discharge of Richardson. It does not appeal the determinations regarding the bulletin board rule; the mailbox rule; or the personal appearance rule. The Board filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order. The District of Columbia Nurses Association has filed an Intervenor's Brief in support of the Board's position. II 52 If the Board's findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence taken from the record as a whole, the reviewing court should not disturb the Board's order. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951); NLRB v. Kiawah Island Co., 650 F.2d 485, 489 (4th Cir.1981); Act Sec. 10(e), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 160(e). We must uphold a Board's conclusions of law if based upon a reasonably defensible construction of the Act. NLRB v. United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 23, 484 U.S. 112 (1987). A reviewing court may not displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo. Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 488. See ARA Leisure Servs., Inc. v. NLRB, 782 F.2d 456, 459 (4th Cir.1986); NLRB v. Nueva Eng'g, Inc., 761 F.2d 961, 965 (4th Cir.1985). Whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence is a question of law for the court to decide. Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 491. III 53 Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(a)(1), makes it unlawful for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to join or support Union activities. We evaluate the coercive or intimidating nature of the employer's actions under the totality of the circumstances. See Nueva, 761 F.2d at 965. In light of the above standard, we affirm the Board's conclusion that the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by disparately enforcing its solicitation and distribution rule. 54 Under Section 8(c) of the Act, employers have the legal right to express their views concerning a Union's organizing efforts so long as the opinions do not involve threats or coercion. An employer does not violate the Act by enforcing a valid no solicitation rule pertaining to on-duty employees while engaging in antiunion solicitation of its own. NLRB v. United Steelworkers of Am., CIO (Nutone, Inc.), 357 U.S. 357, 362 (1958); Lutheran Hosp. of Milwaukee, 224 NLRB 176, 181 (1986), modified on other grounds, 569 F.2d 208 (7th Cir.1977). 55 Employees, however, also have the right to self-organization and collective bargaining established by [Section 7] of the Act. [This right] necessarily encompasses the right of employees effectively to communicate with one another regarding self-organization on the job site. Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 492 (1978). Generally, employers cannot adopt rules prohibiting solicitation or distribution on nonworking time. Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 803-04 (1945). In the context of a hospital, however, the Board has permitted more restrictions on employee solicitation and distribution because of problems with disruption of patient care. For example, a hospital may ban all solicitation and distribution in immediate patient care areas. A rule, however, that prohibits distribution or solicitation on nonwork time in nonworking areas is presumptively invalid unless the hospital demonstrates that the prohibition is necessary to avoid disruption of health care operations or disturbance of patients. Beth Israel, 437 U.S. at 491. The rule cannot be overly broad. NLRB v. Baptist Hosp., Inc., 442 U.S. 773, 781 (1979). The hospital bears the burden of proving that the prohibition is necessary to lessen disruption to patients. Id. at 507. See Southern Maryland Hospital, 916 F.2d 932 (4th Cir.1990) (enforcing order requiring Hospital to allow distribution and solicitation at entrance doors in early morning hours). 56 The Hospital contends that the Board erroneously held that the Hospital's antiunion solicitation in areas barred to prounion solicitation violated Section 8(a)(1). We disagree. The Hospital's antiunion solicitation in areas barred to Union sympathizers 11 indicates that the Hospital never needed to apply the rule in those areas. If the Hospital had merely allowed noncontroversial solicitation, such as Tupperware sales, in these areas, a different result may, but not necessarily, have been dictated. In light of the Hospital's antiunion activity in banned areas, however, the hospital has not met its burden of proving that the prohibition on solicitation is necessary to lessen disruption to patients. See Beth Israel, 437 U.S. at 507. In other words, the Hospital's no solicitation/distribution rule does not meet thejustification requirement set forth in Beth Israel: the hospital knew that no disruption of patient care would occur from solicitation in banned areas, such as the nurses' stations. Consequently, because the Hospital's rule violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, we cannot allow the Hospital to continue excluding prounion solicitation in the previously forbidden areas. 57 The Hospital also takes issue with the Board's finding that it allowed employees to solicit for and distribute materials about numerous activities in banned areas while disciplining Union organizers for the same behavior. Claiming that all of these other solicitations were hospital related, the Hospital argues that they cannot be relied upon to support an allegation of disparate enforcement. Rochester Gen. Hosp., 234 NLRB 253, 259 (1978). We disagree. As the Board points out, the Hospital mischaracterizes the evidence: the Hospital allowed the sale of many nonhospital-related commercial products including Avon, Tupperware, and Girl Scout Cookies, in banned areas. Moreover, nurses were told to cease bringing Union material to the building; others were prohibited from distributing Union material in nurses' lounges, even though the rule allowed distribution in nurses' lounges. These prohibitions did not apply to nonunion products and activities. 58 Therefore, the Hospital's maintenance and enforcement of its no solicitation/no distribution rule violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. By its actions, the Hospital demonstrated there was no need for the rule. More importantly, the Hospital disparately applied the Rule. Thus, the Board's decision regarding the Hospital's no solicitation/no distribution rule merits enforcement. IV 59 Section 8(a)(3) of the Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(a)(3)) prohibits employer discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment ... to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Thus, an employer violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging an employee for engaging in activities in support of union representation. See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Frigid Storage, Inc., 934 F.2d 506, 509-10 (4th Cir.1991); Salem Leasing Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 774 F.2d 85, 89 (4th Cir.1985). Section 8(a)(3) and (1) violations are subject to a two-tiered analysis. First, an employee may not be discharged for engaging in conduct protected by Section 7. 12 Leasco, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 289 NLRB 549 n.1 (1988). To remove conduct from the protection of the Act, a court must find the conduct to be egregious or of such a character as to render the employee unfit for further service. Id. at 549. The Board employed this standard in the instant case to find the conduct protected. See Brunswick Food and Drug, 284 NLRB 661, 665 (1987), enforced mem., 859 F.2d 927 (11th Cir.1988). 60 Even if the employee's conduct is not protected, however, a discharge motivated by antiunion animus violates the Act. Nueva Eng'g, 761 F.2d at 966. Under this tier of the test, the employee must establish two elements: (1) that antiunion animus was a substantial factor in the discharge, NLRB v. Transportation Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 400 (1983), and (2) that the discharge would not have occurred but for the antiunion animus. Id. at 967. See Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enforced as modified, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 989 (1982); approved in Transportation Mgmt Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983). 61 Under Wright Line, once a court finds antiunion animus to be a motivating factor, the burden shifts to the employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the discharge would have occurred even without the protected conduct. Transportation Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S. at 400-03. Accord Salem Leasing Corp., 744 F.2d at 87-88; NLRB v. Daniel Construction Co., 731 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir.1984). Motive is usually the main question to be resolved. N.L.R.B. v. Hale Container, 943 F.2d 394, 398 (4th Cir.1991). Because the question of motive is a question of fact, we cannot disturb the Board's determination unless it is not supported by substantial evidence based on the record as a whole. Nueva Eng'g, 761 F.2d at 968. Applying this standard, we affirm the Board's finding that Richardson's discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 62 The Hospital's argument against the Board's finding of a violation is two-fold. First, it asserts that Richardson's conduct was unprotected. In the alternative, the Hospital argues that the discharge was not motivated by antiunion animus. We consider each argument in turn. 63  Contending that the Board incorrectly employs anegregiousness standard to find Richardson's activity protected, the Hospital argues that Richardson's speech does not fall within the bounds of protected activity. We disagree. In Leasco, the Board upheld the egregiousness standard for distinguishing conduct which the Act would not protect. 289 NLRB 549 (1988). The cases cited by the Hospital do not prove otherwise. Atlantic Steel Co., 245 NLRB 814 (1979); Golden Nugget, Inc., 215 NLRB 50 (1974). In fact, Golden Nugget predates numerous cases employing the egregiousness test. See Brunswick Food, 284 NLRB at 665; Postal Service, 250 NLRB 4 (1980). 64 The Hospital also relies on Atlantic Steel to argue that Richardson's conduct was unprotected. We find no merit in this argument. In Atlantic Steel, the Board set forth several factors for determining when an employee's conduct is sufficiently severe to lose the protection of the Act: (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of the employee's outburst; and (4) whether the outburst was, in any way, provoked by the employer's unfair labor practice. 245 NLRB at 816. 65 Although the Atlantic Steel Board held that a shop steward's use of profanity towards his supervisor removed him from the protection of the Act, id. at 814, that case is distinguishable from the instant case. The obscenity directed at the foreman in that case was completely unprovoked and occurred on the production floor during the employee's working time. Id. at 816. In contrast, Richardson's remark did not involve profanity, was provoked by conversation about the Union, and was uttered on her break. Thus, even applying the factors from Atlantic Steel, Richardson's statement does not lose the protection of the Act. B 66 In its alternative argument, the Hospital challenges the Board's holding that, even if Richardson's conduct were unprotected, the Hospital still violated the Act because antiunion animus motivated the discharge. We find this argument to be without merit. 67 Fairfax first argues that the Board erroneously relied on the Hospital's other Section 8(a)(1) violations to find antiunion animus. The Hospital contends that such circumstantial evidence may be used only where violations are egregious. This argument is unpersuasive. We have held that motive is a question of fact and that the Board may infer discriminatory motivation from either direct or circumstantial evidence. Nueva Eng'g, 761 F.2d at 967. See also Frigid Storage, 934 F.2d at 510 (finding retaliatory motive from numerous uncontested violations); American Thread Co. v. NLRB, 631 F.2d 316, 321 (4th Cir.1980); Gencorp, 294 NLRB 717 n.1 (1989). None of these cases limits circumstantial evidence of motive to egregious violations. 68 Moreover, because motive is a question of fact, we must accept the Board's finding of antiunion animus if there is substantial support for it on the record as a whole. Salem Leasing, 774 F.2d at 89. In this case, substantial evidence of an antiunion motive exists: Richardson had an exemplary employment record, sixteen years of experience at the Hospital, and consistently excellent evaluations. Yet she was fired, without warning, for her retaliation comment made during a conversation about the Union. Consequently, we will not disturb the Board's finding of antiunion animus. 69 Next, the Hospital argues that, even if the General Counsel has established a prima facie case of antiunion motivation, the Hospital has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Richardson would have been fired anyway. Pointing to its good faith belief that the retaliation comment was a severe threat, the Hospital contends that Richardson would have been discharged for her remark regardless of antiunion sentiment. 70 The Board, however, adopted the ALJ's credibility determinations that the reason advanced by the Hospital for Richardson's discharge was not credible 13 and that, in any event, the Hospital failed to follow its own progressive discipline policy in its discharge of Richardson. 14 (J.A. 82). Considering Richardson's exemplary record, her noted Union activity, and the Hospital's failure to follow standard disciplinary procedure, we must conclude that substantial evidence exists to support the Board's conclusion that the Hospital's explanation for Richardson's discharge was mere pretext. 71 Therefore, the Hospital's discharge of RN Richardson violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Richardson's activity was protected. Even if it was not, the evidence establishes that antiunion animus motivated the discharge. Consequently, because we find that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board's findings, the Board's order is enforced with respect to Richardson. V 72 The Hospital raises numerous arguments in an attempt to prevent enforcement of the Board's order with respect to the Hospital's surveillance of Union activities and the Off-Duty Access Rule. We find that the Hospital's contentions are without merit. Accordingly, we also grant enforcement as to these portions of the Board's order. VI 73 We find that substantial evidence exists to support the Board's finding of violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3). Accordingly, enforcement of the NLRB's order is granted. ENFORCEMENT GRANTED