Lightner v. 1621 Route 22 West Operating Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-2007 (MLC)
| Decision Date | 16 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-2007 (MLC) |
| Parties | J. MICHAEL LIGHTNER, Petitioner, v. 1621 ROUTE 22 WEST OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a SOMERSET VALLEY REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Petitioner, J. Michael Lightner, Regional Director of Region 22 of the National Labor Relations Board ("the Regional Director"), brings this action against Respondent, 1621 Route 22 West Operating Company, LLC, doing business as Somerset Valley Rehabilitation and Nursing Center ("Somerset Valley"), a long-term care facility. The Regional Director seeks two primary forms of relief: (1) to enjoin Somerset Valley from engaging in behavior that violates the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 141, et seq. ("the Act"); and (2) to compel Somerset Valley to reinstate the employment and restore the work schedules of employees who are named in the Amended Petition. (Dkt. entry no. 27, Am. Petition.)1 He is joined by amicus, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East ("the Union").
This matter arises from the facts attendant to the Union's organizing campaign at Somerset Valley and the subsequent union election. As explained in greater detail below, the Union helped certain Somerset Valley employees garner support for a union election, file a petition for that election, and campaign in favor of unionizing the Somerset Valley workforce.2 At the September 2, 2010 union election, the Somerset Valley workforce voted in favor of unionization.
In August and September of 2010, the Regional Director filed unfair labor practice charges before the National Labor Relations Board ("the Board"), which he most recently amended in February of 2011. Through those charges, the Regional Director asserts that Somerset Valley, after the petition was filed but before the September 2, 2010 election, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) ("Section 8(a)(1)"), both by: (1) interrogating employees about Union support and activities; and (2) soliciting employees' grievances and impliedly promising benefits. The Regional Director further asserts that Somerset Valley, after the election, violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) ("Section 8(a)(3)"), by disciplining, reducing the hours worked by, and discharging employees who supported the Union.
During the pendency of those administrative proceedings, the Regional Director commenced this action, seeking injunctive relief, i.e., relief during the pendency of the administrative and related appellate proceedings. He asserts that he has "reasonable cause to believe" that Somerset Valley committed the alleged violations of the Act detailed in the unfair labor practice charges filed before the Board. (Dkt. entry no. 27-1, Regional Director's Pre-hearing Br. at 19-26.) He also argues that such relief is "just and proper" inasmuch as it will: (1) reassure Somerset Valley's employees that they may support the Union without fear of retaliation; (2) preserve the Union's ability to effectively represent those employees; and (3) remove any chilling effects caused by Somerset Valley's alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8(a)(3).
Somerset Valley denies that it violated Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8(a)(3). It asserts, with respect to Section 8(a)(1), that Somerset Valley's administrative staff casually questioned employees about Union sympathies, and questioned employees about grievances without offering actual promises to remedy those grievances. (See generally dkt. entry no. 25, Somerset Valley's Initial Pre-hearing Br.; see also dkt. entry no. 130, Tr. of Closing Arguments at 13-19.) With respect to Section 8(a)(3), Somerset Valley admits that it disciplined, reduced the hoursworked by, and/or discharged the employees named in the Amended Petition, but asserts that it took such action based on each employee's job performance and its staffing needs. (Somerset Valley's Initial Pre-hearing Br. at 17-21; Tr. of Closing Arguments at 20-95.) It denies acting upon Union animus. (Somerset Valley's Initial Pre-hearing Br. at 17-21; Tr. of Closing Arguments at 20-95.) Somerset Valley further claims that the relief now sought by the Regional Director does not serve the public interest. (Somerset Valley's Initial Pre-hearing Br. at 21-44.)
After the Regional Director commenced this action, the parties appeared before Administrative Law Judge Steven Davis ("the ALJ") to argue the merits of the underlying unfair labor practice charges. That hearing ("the ALJ Hearing") took place over nineteen days between April 27, 2011 and June 28, 2011, and yielded 272 exhibits and over 3,200 pages of transcripts.3 Pursuant to the parties' request, the Court has adopted the ALJ Hearing record as part of the record in this matter. (See dkt. entry no. 39, 6-9-11 Transcript at 55, 60-63, 102-104.) The parties also appeared before the Court for a supplementalhearing, which was held during eight days between November 30, 2011 and February 9, 2012, and oral argument, which was held on March 13, 2012 and March 23, 2012.4
The Court has reviewed the record in its entirety, including the affidavits, declarations, and deposition transcripts provided by the parties (see, e.g., dkt. entry nos. 25-26); the transcript of and evidence adduced at the ALJ Hearing; the transcript of and evidence adduced at the supplemental hearing; and the Decision rendered by the ALJ (dkt. entry no. 81-1, ALJ Decision). The Court has also considered the arguments presented by the Regional Director, the Union, and Somerset Valley. Upon consideration of the foregoing, and as set forth at length below, the Court grants the Amended Petition in part and denies it in part.
Somerset Valley is a healthcare facility that provides rehabilitative and long-term, clinical care to patients who, in many cases, cannot care for themselves. (Dkt. entry no. 25-14,Illis Decl. at ¶ 2; dkt. entry no. 35-10, GC Ex. 1.)5 Its facility contains thirty-two patient rooms, each containing two beds; it thus has a maximum occupancy of sixty-four patients. (See ALJ Hearing Transcript at 1404.) As a healthcare facility, Somerset Valley is subject to both New Jersey and federal health regulations. (See, e.g., SH Transcript 2 at 102-03.)
Somerset Valley is owned by CareOne, LLC ("CareOne"). (ALJ Hearing Transcript at 1403-04.) CareOne, during the periods relevant to this action, employed Jason Hutchens as its Regional Director of Operations and Andrea Lee as its Vice President of Human Resources. (Id. at 78, 1403-04.) Hutchens and Lee, in their respective positions, oversaw operations at Somerset Valley and other CareOne facilities. (Id.)
Between November of 2009 and May of 2011, CareOne also employed Jackie Engram as its Vice President of Clinical Operations. (Id. at 1841-42.) Engram, in this role, oversaw the nursing departments in CareOne's New Jersey facilities. (Id.) In January of 2011, Engram also assumed responsibilities as Somerset Valley's acting Director of Nursing ("DON"). (Id. at 1845.)6
Somerset Valley, during the periods relevant to this action, employed, inter alia, six categories of employees: (1) an administrator; (2) a DON; (3) unit managers; (4) nurses (including registered nurses ("RNs") and licensed practical nurses ("LPNs")); (5) certified nurse's aides ("CNAs"); and (6) a staffing coordinator. (See id. at 899-900, 1185-86, 1405-07, 1993, 2663.)7 The administrator, DON, and unit manager work together to supervise the nurses, CNAs, and the staffing coordinator. (Id. at 1991-2226, 2664.)
The administrator, who sits atop the management hierarchy, reports to CareOne, ensures that the facility meets state and federal regulations, and supervises all of the departments at Somerset Valley, including those directly responsible for patient care. (Id. at 2664.) The DON reports to the administrator,directly oversees clinical services and, in that capacity, ensures both that the facility is adequately staffed with nurses and CNAs, and that such employees provide adequate patient care. (See generally id. at 1991-2226.) The unit manager, who represents the lowest level of management in this hierarchy, reports to the DON, directly supervises the nursing employees, and ensures adequate patient care. (Id. at 900; dkt. entry no. 26-1, Southgate Aff. at ¶ 1.)
The Somerset Valley nursing employees attend to Somerset Valley's patients' medical needs and assist those patients with daily living activities. During the periods relevant to this petition, RNs and LPNs administered medication and recorded such administration on Medication Administration Records ("MARs"); they similarly administered treatment, e.g., lotions, salves, and bandages, and recorded administration of such treatments on Treatment Administration Records ("TARs"). (ALJ Hearing Transcript at 162-63, 277, 908-09, 982, 2014-17.) Nurses also transcribed doctors' orders for medication and treatment onto patients' MARs and TARs, communicated with doctors and pharmacies, and documented incidents that might affect patient care, such as new admissions, falls, or new medical symptoms. (See, e.g., id. at 451-54, 586, 601, 909-11, 2505-07.) CNAs assisted patients with daily living activities by, inter alia, distributing food, helping patients eat, and cleaning patients.(See, e.g., dkt. entry no. 26-9, Aguilar Aff. at ¶ 1; dkt. entry no. 26-14, Onyeike Aff. at ¶ 1.)
Somerset Valley refers to its nursing staff by employees' respective level of education (i.e., RN, LPN, or CNA), scheduled shift, and employment status. Nurses and CNAs typically work on one of three shifts: (1) the morning shift (from 6:45 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., sometimes referred to as the 7-3 shift); (2) the evening shift (from 2:45 p.m. to 11:15 p.m., sometimes...
To continue reading
Request your trial