MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Currently pending is petitioner Paul J. Murphy’s (“petitioner” or “Murphy”), Regional Director of the Third Region of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), for and on behalf of the NLRB, petition seeking temporary injunctive relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §160(j), also known as §10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), that includes, among other things, a cease and desist order enjoining and restraining respondent NCRNC, LLC, doing business as Northeast Center For Rehabilitation and Brain Injury (“NCRNC”), from interrogating, harassing, threatening, suspending, or discharging employees regarding or due to their or their co-workers’ union activities, and reinstatement of two employees pending final administrative disposition of unfair labor practices charges brought against respondent. See ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). The parties have briefed the issues and the matter was taken on the basis of the submissions and without a hearing. II. BACKGROUND This case concerns ongoing disputes surrounding a union organizing campaign led by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (the “Union”) at NCRNC in Lake Katrine, New York. NCRNC is a health care facility providing rehabilitation and long term care to individuals with traumatic brain injuries. Most of the residents, known at the facility as “neighbors,” suffer from cognitive impairments such as problems with attention and concentration, mood regulation and impulse control, processing and understanding information, and self-awareness and judgment, among other issues. The Union has been seeking since July 2019 to organize licensed practical nurses (“LPNs”), certified nursing assistants (“CNAs”), and community support service (“CSS”) workers at the facility. Petitioner alleges that respondent has engaged in a vigorous campaign, replete with unfair labor practices, to prevent the Union from gaining a foothold at NCRNC. In connection with the foregoing, on November 20, 2019, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge in Case 03-CA-252090 alleging that respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA by retaliating against LPN Cathy Todd (“Todd”), and then terminating her employment on November 19, 2019, because of her union activity; retaliating against CSS supervisor Joshua Endy (“Endy”)1, including suspending him from work indefinitely, because of his union activity; and interrogating employees regarding their union activity. Pet., Exh. A. On December 10, 2019, the Union filed an amended unfair labor practice charge in Case 03-CA-252090 alleging that respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA by retaliating against Todd, by suspending, and later terminating her employment on November 19, 2019, because of her union activity; retaliating against Endy, by suspending him from work indefinitely and then terminating his employment on November 27, 2019, because of his union activity; interrogating employees regarding their union activity; threatening employees regarding and/or because of their union activity; and creating the impression of surveillance regarding employees’ union activity. Pet., Exh. B. On January 7, 2020, the Union filed a charge in Case 03-CA-254186. That charge is not before this Court as petitioner does not seek injunctive relief regarding that allegation. The aforesaid charges were referred to petitioner as Regional Director of the Third Region of the NLRB. On March 4, 2020, the Regional Director issued an order consolidating the above cases, setting forth a consolidated complaint, and providing notice of a hearing. The administrative hearing was scheduled to begin on April 27, 2020 and continue for consecutive days until completed. On April 1, 2020, the Regional Director issued an order postponing the administrative hearing indefinitely due to COVID-19. On April 13, 2020, the Regional Director filed the instant petition, which seeks a temporary injunction from the Court reinstating Todd and Endy, rescinding the suspensions issued to them, and enjoining NCRNC from engaging in further unfair labor practices. Petitioner contends that respondent has violated the NLRA by interrogating Endy and LPN Geraldine Louissaint Charles (“Louissaint Charles”); threatening Todd, Endy, and LPN Kelly Leonard (“Leonard”); creating the impression of surveillance of Leonard; and suspending and terminating Endy and Todd for their union activity. Respondent denies these allegations and insists that the matter provides no basis for injunctive relief. III. LEGAL STANDARD Petitioner seeks an injunction pursuant to Section 10(j) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. §160(j). Section 10(j) provides: The Board shall have power, upon issuance of a complaint as provided in subsection (b) of this section charging that any person has engaged in or is engaging in an unfair labor practice, to petition any United States district court, within any district wherein the unfair labor practice in question is alleged to have occurred or wherein such person resides or transacts business, for appropriate temporary relief or restraining order. Upon the filing of any such petition the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such person, and thereupon shall have jurisdiction to grant to the Board such temporary relief or restraining order as it deems just and proper. In this Circuit, to issue a Section 10(j) injunction, the district court must apply a two-prong test. First, “the court must find reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have been committed.” Hoffman ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Inn Credible Caterers, Ltd., 247 F.3d 360, 364-65 (2d Cir. 2001). “[R]easonable cause to support such a conclusion is sufficient,” or put differently, a “district court does not…make a final determination whether the conduct in question constitutes an unfair labor practice.” Id. at 365. In determining whether reasonable cause exists, a district court should show “[a]ppropriate deference…to the judgment of the NLRB, and…should decline to grant relief only if convinced that the NLRB’s legal or factual theories are fatally flawed.” Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Comm., Inc., 67 F.3d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1995). “Appropriate deference” to the NLRB means that “the Regional Director’s version of the facts should be sustained if within the range of rationality…inferences from the facts should be drawn in favor of the Region, and even on issues of law, the district court should be hospitable to the views of the General Counsel, however novel.” Murphy v. Cayuga Med. Ctr. of Ithaca, 715 F. App’x 108, 109 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Kaynard v. Mego Corp., 633 F.2d 1026, 1031 (2d Cir. 1980)). Second, “the court must find that the requested relief is just and proper.” Hoffman, 247 F.3d at 365. “This Circuit has made clear that courts should grant interim relief under Section 10(j) in accordance with traditional equity practice, as conditioned by the necessities of public interest which Congress has sought to protect.” Mattina ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Kingsbridge Heights Rehab. & Care Ctr., 329 F. App’x 319, 321 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, “injunctive relief under §10(j) is just and proper when it is necessary to prevent irreparable harm or to preserve the status quo.” Hoffman, 247 F.3d at 368. When determining whether injunctive relief is necessary to prevent irreparable harm or to preserve the status quo, a standard which “preserves traditional equitable principles governing injunctive relief,” courts must be mindful to apply this standard “in the context of federal labor laws.” Murphy, 715 F. App’x at 111 (internal quotations omitted) (citing Hoffman, 247 F.3d at 368; Kreisberg v. HealthBridge Mgmt., LLC, 732 F.3d 131, 141 (2d Cir. 2013)). As the Second Circuit made clear, “Kreisberg explained that the just and proper prong of the §10(j) injunctive relief standard for labor disputes incorporates elements of the four-part standard for preliminary injunctions that applies in other contexts,” including equitable considerations such as patient safety. Murphy, 715 F. App’x at 111 (internal quotations omitted). IV. DISCUSSION At the outset, it must be reiterated that the Court’s role at this juncture is merely to decide whether the standard for temporary relief under §10(j) has been met, and, then, whether the requested relief is appropriate. To reiterate, petitioner seeks an injunction prohibiting NCRNC from interfering with employees’ organizing rights pursuant to Section 7 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. §157, and discriminating among employees on the basis of their organizing activities, all pursuant to Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. §158(a)(1), (3). The petition includes a detailed list of unfair labor practices from which the NLRB seeks to restrain NCRNC. Petitioner further seeks two categories of personnel actions: court-ordered interim reinstatement of former NCRNC employees Todd and Endy and interim rescission of suspensions issued to them, all allegedly in retaliation for their organizing efforts. A. Factual Background2 i. Union Campaign In June 2019, the Union began an organizing campaign among LPNs, CNAs, and CSS workers at NCRNC. Todd attended the first union meeting for employees and became a member of the Union’s organizing committee, as did Endy, Louissaint Charles, and Leonard. The union organizing campaign from its inception through the filling of the petition was driven by a devoted organizing committee made up of approximately eight employees: Todd, Endy, Louissaint Charles, Leonard, CNA Kathryn Lohman (“Lohman”), Maribel Velasquez Crespi, CNA Alex Quintanilla, and LPN Cindy Burgher. Pet. Exh. K, English Aff. 2. Throughout the summer and into the fall of 2019, these employees attended union meetings, participated in shift change gatherings,3 and solicited authorization cards from coworkers. Id.
2-5. They also talked about the Union with coworkers, and communicated regularly with the Union’s lead organizer Lige English (“English”). Id. In late summer and early fall, NCRNC’s administration became aware of the union organizing effort. According to petitioner, employees were first interrogated in early September 2019 when supervisor Registered Nurse Estralla Attanasio (“Attanasio”) approached Louissaint Charles and asked whether she had been passing out union authorization cards. Pet., Exh. C., Louissaint Charles Aff.
