Fresno Community Hospital

FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL Fresno Community Hospital and Stationary Engineers Local 39, International Union of Operating Engi- neers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 32-RC-340 March 28, 1979 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE On June 28, 1978, the Regional Director for Re- gion 32 issued a Decision and Order dismissing the petition in the above-entitled proceeding. The Peti- tioner, which already represented the Employer's en- gineering department employees, sought a separate unit composed of the Employer's maintenance de- partment and electronics department employees. The Regional Director found the petitioned-for unit inap- propriate on the grounds that the maintenance and electronics employees did not share a community of interest sufficiently distinct from the community of interest they shared with service employees as to war- rant their separate representation. Also, the Regional Director noted that the petitioned-for unit would be a separate maintenance unit, the establishment of which contributed to proliferation of hospital bar- gaining units proscribed by congressional directive. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- lations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for re- view alleging that the Regional Director erred in fail- ing to find the petitioned-for unit appropriate. The Employer filed an opposition asserting that the Re- gional Director's finding was correct. On August 18, 1978, the National Labor Relations Board by tele- graphic order granted the Petitioner's request for re- view. Subsequently, the Employer filed a brief restat- ing its position. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issue under review, including the Employer's brief, and makes the following find- ings: In Allegheny General Hospital, 239 NLRB 872 (1978), the Board, after reviewing the legislative his- tory underlying the health care amendments to the Act and the Board's unit determinations in this area, set forth in considerable detail its reasons for conclud- ing that hospital maintenance employees may consti- tute an appropriate bargaining unit. Furthermore, in making this determination, a majority of the Board stated that it will continue to rely on the traditional community-of-interest test, as established in Ameri- can Cyanamid Company, 131 NLRB 909 (1961). See Allegheny General Hospital, supra. The Employer operates a nonprofit hospital in Fresno, California. The hospital employs approxi- mately 1,700 persons in 100 departments. The engi- neering department, already represented by the Peti- tioner, has approximately 15 persons: I supervisor, I chief engineer, I assistant chief engineer, 6 engineers, 5 engineer apprentices, and a secretarial position, which is currently vacant. The electronics depart- ment, which the Petitioner now seeks to represent, has approximately 14 persons: I supervisor, I work- ing supervisor, I electrician, 1 biomedical technician, I electronics technician, 4 apprentice technicians, I apprentice electrician, 3 maintenance helpers, and I clerk. The maintenance department, also currently sought by the Petitioner, has approximately 19 per- sons: I supervisor, 1 working supervisor, 3 painters, I maintenance shop person, 5 maintenance mechanics, 6 maintenance helpers, 1 gardener, and I gardener's helper. The engineering, electronics, and maintenance em- ployees are a distinct administrative grouping of em- ployees apart from other service employees. They are organized in three departments which are adminis- tered as a single entity, plant operations, a subdivi- sion of general services. Each of the three depart- ments has its own supervisory structure. Department heads are responsible for final recommendations con- cerning hiring, evaluations, merit increases, disci- pline, discharges, timecards, vacation scheduling, as- signments, etc. Currently, the director of general services oversees the departmental supervision, be- cause the position of plant operations manager is va- cant. However, it is anticipated that the three depart- ment heads will report to the manager. There is minimal supervision of plant operations employees by other department heads, with the exception of the biomedical technician assigned to surgery. The three plant operations departments have loca- tions throughout the Employer's facility, but engi- neering and maintenance have offices and shops in the basement of the hospital's principal building. The engineering department is responsible for the physical operation of the plant, its air-conditioning system, sewers, pumps, water systems, and disposal systems. The maintenance department repairs walls and equipment, executes painting work, and disposes of trash. The electronics department maintains, repairs, checks, and updates all pieces of electrical and elec- tronic equipment. The Employer contracts out all major maintenance and repair work. In the performance of their functions, the plant op- erations employees exercise a variety of skills. The engineering department has an apprenticeship pro- gram leading to journeyman status. Electronics em- ployees use complex testing equipment in their shop, e.g., signal generators, oscilloscopes, meters, and spe- 241 NLRB No. 73 521 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cial testers for television sets and safety equipment. One employee is primarily responsible for the sophis- ticated equipment in the intensive care, respiratory care, and coronary care units. Another employee re- pairs and installs electronic equipment. Another in- stalls electrical circuits. The maintenance department has shops for machine, carpentry, and painting tasks. Equipment used includes a table saw, joiner, band- saw, machine lathe, drill press, and arc welder. One employee is responsible for welding jobs. The depart- ment supervisor seeks journeyman painting skill in prospective employees, who perform a variety of tasks in addition to painting, such as papering walls, applying vinyl covers, and patching. Other employees perform carpentry work, making small cabinets and completing small upholstery jobs. In addition, the maintenance department refurbished the hospital's five-story building. Even the plant operations em- ployees who handle trash perform a task requiring some degree of skill. The record indicates that the Employer transferred this function from housekeep- ing to maintenance because improper feeding was causing major breakdowns in the equipment. Now the Employer requires that maintenance employees receive training in proper usage of the equipment. The plant operations employees interchange with one another. Maintenance employees assist the engi- neering employees in routine plumbing. Electronics employees use maintenance shop equipment virtually every day. Engineering employees sometimes perform electrical work, e.g., they installed the circuit for an ice machine. However, interchange between plant op- erations and service employees is minimal. Service employees do not use the special electronics depart- ment equipment, and only one rehabilitation em- ployee uses the shop equipment commonly used by both electronics and maintenance employees. More- over, those instances where plant operations employ- ees perform functions in common with service em- ployees are incidental to the primary activity of the respective employees, involving either emergency situations (flooding, loading) or the least skilled tasks (cleaning, moving furniture). Furthermore, while there is substantial contact between the plant opera- tions employees and the service employees, there is little integration of their work functions. Plant opera- tions employees are required to move around the fa- cility to monitor equipment and execute repairs on the spot according to the hospital's work order sys- tem. When working on a joint task, each group of employees performs its respective function. For ex- ample, in order to refurbish patients' rooms, house- keeping employees remove drapes, linen, and cubicle tracks; electronics employees remove television sets, monitors, and electric lights; maintenance employees patch and paint. In addition, it appears that transfers from the service departments to the plant operations departments are minimal. Since 1972, the mainte- nance department has received one employee from each of the two other plant operations departments and only five employees from other departments, three of whom were involved with the transfer of trash handling from housekeeping to maintenance. The employees in the plant operations division are subject to centralized personnel policies and share common fringe benefits with service employees. There is no record evidence concerning the respective pay scales of the plant operations employees on the one hand and the service employees on the other hand. However, we note that engineering employees appear to be relatively highly paid, receiving approxi- mately $7 per hour. Under the circumstances detailed above, and for the reasons set forth in Allegheny General Hospital, supra, we find that the engineering, electronics, and maintenance employees share a community of inter- est sufficiently separate and distinct from the broader community of interest which they share with service employees to warrant their representation as a sepa- rate bargaining unit. In so concluding we note partic- ularly that these employees are established in three departments comprising the separate subdivision of plant operations, with its independent supervision. The plant operations employees perform varied and typical maintenance work for the hospital, exercising the particular skills required by this function. Futher- more, in the performance of their duties, there is minimal interchange and functional integration be- tween plant operations employees and service em- ployees.' As the Petitioner has indicated that it "in effect seeks to enlarge" its engineering department unit by the addition of the two related departments of electronics and maintenance employees, we shall di- rect a self-determination election among the peti- tioned-for employees so that they will be given an opportunity to express their desires with respect to being included with the already-represented engineer- ing department in a single bargaining unit.2 Should a majority of the voting group express a desire to be represented by the Petitioner, in our view, a com- bined unit of engineering, maintenance, and electron- ics department employees would constitute an appro- priate unit and would not contravene the congressional policy against union proliferation of hospital bargaining units. We therefore direct an elec- tion in the following voting group: All electronics and maintenance department em- ployees employed by the Employer at its Fresno, See also Long Island College Hospital, 239 NLRB 1135 (1978) (supple- menting 228 NLRB 83). 2 In its brief in support of its request for review, Petitioner has indicated its willingness to participate in an election directed in any unit. 522 FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL California, hospital; excluding all other employ- ees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act. If a majority of the employees in the voting group cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a part of the existing unit currently represented by the Peti- tioner, and the Petitioner may bargain for such em- ployees as part of that unit. If a majority of them vote against the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indi- cated their desire to remain outside the existing unit, and the Regional Director will issue a Certification of Results of Election to that effect. [Direction of Election omitted from publication.]3 MEMBER PENEI.IO, dissenting: For the reasons expressed in my concurring opin- ion in St. Vincent's Hospital4 and my dissenting opin- ion in Allegheny General Hospital, supra. I dissent from my colleagues' direction of an election in a vot- ing group composed of the Employer's electronics and maintenance employees. In my concurring opinion in St. Iincents Hospital, I indicated: [A] craft maintenance unit may be appropriate when, viewed in light of all the criteria tradition- ally considered in determining the appropriate- ness of maintenance units generally, its establish- ment does not conflict with the congressional [Erxcelior footnote omittled from publication.] 4223 NLRB 638 (1976) mandate against proliferation of bargaining units in the health care industry. [Footnote omitted.] This standard, which is a more rigid one than is applied in other industries, can be met when the unit sought . . . is composed of licensed crafts- men engaged in traditional craft work, which is performed in a separate and distinct location apart from other employees in the health care facility. Normally, such employees do not per- form other services throughout the health care facility ... and there is, at most, minimal transfer or interchange to and from the craft unit.5 The facts set forth in the majority opinion herein clearly demonstrate that the petitioned-for employees do not meet the above-stated standard. I note, in par- ticular, that there appears to be no requirement that any of the employees involved be licensed or regis- tered, and while some exhibit craft-like skills, others possess only minimal skills. In addition, the peti- tioned-for employees perform services throughout the facility, rather than in a separate and distinct loca- tion. As a result, they come into regular contact with the other nonprofessional employees and often work in conjunction with the housekeeping employees in performing their duties. Thus, I find that the peti- tioned-for employees do not share a community of interest sufficiently distinct from that of the service employees to warrant separate representation. Ac- cordingly, I would dismiss the petition. 223 NL.RB at 639 640. 523