U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Grants an Injunction Against Vista Del Sol Healthcare

Judge Margaret M. Morrow, United States District Court for the Central District of California, granted a petition for temporary injunction filed by Region 31 (Los Angeles) of the National Labor Relations Board against Vista Del Sol Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Vista Del Sol Healthcare. The injunction ordered the interim reinstatement of the two discharged and seven laid off employees, a notice posting, and a notice reading. In addition, Vista Del Sol Health Services (Respondent) was ordered to cease and desist from:

Making it appear to employees as though Respondent is monitoring their union activities;

Interrogating employees about support for a union, including Service Employees International Union-United Long Term Care Workers, SEIU-ULTCW (Union);Instructing employees to stop communicating with the Union;

Promising and/or granting employees new or better benefits to discourage Union support;

Implicitly 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;

Threatening employees with closure of its facility and job loss for engaging in protected concerted and/or union activities.

Judge Morrow also 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 issued by Judge Morrow 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.