Court Grants 10(j) Injunction against Vista Del Sol Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Vista Del Sol Healthcare

At the request of the National Labor Relations Board, U.S. District Court Judge Margaret M. Morrow has issued a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against Vista Del Sol Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Vista Del Sol Healthcare. Judge Morrow ordered that Vista Del Sol Healthcare cease and desist from, inter alia, making it appear to employees that Respondent is watching out for their union activities; interrogating employees about employee support for a union, including Service Employees International Union-United Long Term Care Workers, SEIU-ULTCW (Union); telling employees to stop talking to the Union; promising employees better benefits and giving them new or better benefits to discourage them from supporting the Union; impliedly threatening employees with unspecified reprisals if they choose to be represented by or support the Union; making coercive statements to employees; threatening to enforce more strictly Respondent’s tardiness and uniform policies; firing or laying off employees because of their Union membership or support; and threatening employees with closure of its facility and job loss for engaging in protected concerted and/or union activities.
In addition to ordering interim reinstatement of the two discharged and seven laid off employees, a notice posting, and a notice reading, Judge Morrow granted the extraordinary remedy of an interim Gissel bargaining order, finding that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices that impeded the holding of an election and requiring Respondent to recognize and, on request, bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of certain of Respondent’s employees.
The temporary injunction granted Tuesday, January 20, 2015, by Judge Morrow in the Central District of California will remain in effect until the underlying case is fully resolved by the National Labor Relations Board. The court found that the Region’s argument was likely to succeed, that irreparable harm would likely occur if the injunction was not granted, and that the balance of hardships and public interest weighed heavily in favor of granting the injunction.