Beverly Confident Federal Court Again Will Overturn Flawed NLRB Decisions.

FORT SMITH, Ark.--(BW HealthWire)--Aug. 25, 1998--The following are comments by Beverly Enterprises (NYSE:BEV) on the National Labor Relations Board decisions involving the Beverly II and Beverly III consolidated cases:

-- After stalling for up to ten years, the NLRB finally issued very

predictable yet cursory decisions. The rulings are fundamentally

flawed and obviously biased, and we have complete confidence that

Beverly again will prevail when we appeal these cases to federal

court.

-- The facts in these cases are even more favorable to Beverly than

those in the NLRB's initial ruling against the company in 1994

("Beverly I"). That NLRB ruling was overturned by the Second

Circuit. We have even stronger cases this time, and are confident

of an equally favorable result now that these matters finally can

be reviewed in an impartial forum.

-- These consolidated cases ("Beverly II and III") deal with alleged

labor law violations that occurred between 1988 and 1993 at 26 of

our then-1,000 skilled nursing facilities. Virtually all of the

incidents involve "he said/she said" allegations that simply

won't stand up in court. The NLRB relied upon disputed facts,

even reversing rulings by its own administrative law judges.

-- Despite intensive union organizing efforts and a

well-orchestrated propaganda campaign, 95 percent of Beverly's

facilities nation-wide have never had an unfair labor practice 

complaint filed against them.

-- The NLRB's decision would require that notices be posted at 1,000

facilities, even though the alleged violations occurred at only

26 -- less than three percent of Beverly's total facilities at

the time.

-- Part of the unions' campaign of harassment and intimidation of

Beverly is the incessant filing of alleged labor law violations.

In fact, even though the NLRB's complaint review process is

clearly biased in favor of labor, Beverly fares better than most

companies accused of unfair labor practices. Within the NLRB, 80

to 85 percent of the complaints against companies are upheld.

However, with Beverly, the NLRB's own administrative law judges

dismiss about 50 percent of the alleged violations upon initial

review.

NLRB Delays

-- The NLRB violated its own protocol in processing these complaints

-- by bundling them together to create the appearance of greater

severity, by refusing to settle even insignificant cases and then

by delaying a decision for nearly a decade. The NLRB waited so

long that it's doubtful that any of the employees who were

involved in the disputes are still employed by Beverly, and

Beverly no longer owns seven of the facilities in which the

incidents occurred.

-- This bundling of charges and delayed action by the NLRB -- done

to accommodate the unions' interests -- is akin to a referee

refusing to rule on plays during a game, instead collecting all

the disputed calls until the end of the season and then deciding

all of them in favor of the "preferred" team. In both instances,

the excessive delay renders the remedy ineffective. The NLRB's

actions violate public trust, represent a waste of taxpayer

dollars and deprive the parties of a timely resolution of

disputes.

-- In Bev II, the allegations in question surround events that

transpired as early as 1987 at 17 Beverly facilities, and the

charges against Beverly were filed in early 1988. It took the

NLRB 4 years to complete its stockpiling of charges, and the

complaint was issued in 1991. It took another year to get the

case tried before an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ), who in

June 1994 found that less than half the alleged violations were

valid. Beverly then appealed to the full board of the NLRB, which

sat on the case for an additional 4 years.

-- In Bev III, the original complaint was filed in June 1993,

concerning nine Beverly facilities. The ALJ's recommendation was

issued in June 1995, and the NLRB waited another 3 years to issue

its decision.

-- This extreme delay was calculated to benefit the unions at

Beverly's expense. Until charges are finally resolved, unions

make frequent public references to the number of "outstanding

unfair labor practice charges" against Beverly, creating the

impression that these charges constitute violations. Beverly

welcomes the opportunity to finally resolve the allegations

through an impartial forum.

NLRB's Record of Impropriety

-- The NLRB has a well-established pattern of issuing decisions that

blindly support the labor movement. Beverly is certainly not the

first victim of the NLRB. The following excerpts from federal

court rulings refer to the NLRB and its decisions:

"Supreme Court precedent, Board precedent, and common sense all

militate against the Board's decision in this case." (Third

Circuit)

"...its [the Board's] apparently willful defiance of long

established, controlling judicial precedent" [DC Circuit]

"[The Board] relies on irrelevant evidence and assertions not

supported by the record...draws illogical and cryptic 

conclusions" [DC Circuit Court]

"There has been over the years much adverse comment, including by

this court, on the Board's stubborn refusal ...to make

adequate findings...."[Seventh Circuit]

"...in full recognition of the Board's continuing failure to

comply with our request for reasoned analyses...." [Second

Circuit]

"The Board's cavalier treatment of this matter, in the face of

ample precedent to the contrary, is simply inexcusable. The

Board is reminded that the National Labor Relations Act must

not be enforced in a vacuum." [Seventh Circuit]

"This is an unwholesome outlook which not only fails to take

cognizance of the mentioned principles of our

administrative-judicial system but ignores the fact that the

interpretation and application of the Act is vested not only

in the Board but also the Court of Appeals and the Supreme

Court. It serves no purpose other to impinge on the respect

which deliberations of the Board are customarily

accorded...." [Seventh Circuit]

"Of the circuit courts which have considered the Board's policy,

not one has accepted its validity. On the contrary, the

courts have criticized the Board's refusal to acquiesce in

the law of the circuit as 'intolerable,' 'outside the law,'

and 'contumacious.'" [Sixth Circuit]

"The Board's finding...is simply unsupported by the record."

[Fourth Circuit]

"In sum, the Board's interpretation...is not consistent with the

evidence in this case. Evidence supporting the Board's

determination...is simply absent from the

record...Additionally, the Board's conclusion...contradicts

this Circuit's binding precedent." [Fourth Circuit]

CONTACT: Beverly Enterprises, Fort Smith

Jim Griffith, 501/484-6912