Good Samaritan Home for the Aged

198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Good Samaritan Hospital, a/k/a' Good Samaritan Home for the Aged and Building Service Employ- ees Union Local 50, affiliated with Service Employ- ees International Union , AFL-CIO,' Petitioner and Drexel Home, Inc. Service Employees Internation- al Union, AFL-CIO California Nurses' Association American Nurses' Association , Intervenors' Case 14-RC-61 10 August 27, 1970 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Karl A. Sauber of the National Labor Relations Board. Follow- ing the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- lations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the case was transferred to the Board for decision. Briefs have been filed by the Employer, Petitioner, Intervenors Service Employees Internation- al Union, AFL-CIO, California Nurses' Association, and American Nurses' Association, and by the Ameri- can Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and the American Association of Homes for the Aging as amid curiae.' The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is a private, church-related, chari- table, nonprofit, 215-bed institution licensed by the State of Missouri as a practical nursing home, and by the City of St. Louis as a home for the aged. It is affiliated with, but not controlled by, the United Church of Christ, and offers domiciliary and skilled nursing care services to both paying and charity resi- dents who are drawn almost exclusively from the St. Louis area, and who have met the Employer's admission requirements that they be at least 70 years of age, ambulatory, and in good health for their The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing Intervenors herein intervened on the basis of their substantial interest in the Board's review of the policy issue of whether the Board should assert jurisdiction over nonprofit nursing homes and related facilities Requests for oral argument are hereby denied, as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties and amid curiae age. Its medical staff consists of one physician who is on 24-hour call and who visits the Employer several times weekly. Its skilled nursing care services are provided on a continuous basis in a 32-bed section of its facility under the supervision of registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and other personnel normally associated with such extended care facilities. This section also is qualified under Medicare as an extended care facility, and Medicare payments are made directly or indirectly to the Employer during a resident's confinement to this section. Inasmuch as the Employer is not a vendor under the Medicaid program,' it does not participate therein directly, but instead is paid an undisclosed amount by such of its 42 residents eligible under the program as have utilized the Employer's medical and nursing services. During 1968, the Employer grossed approximately $568,000 in resident charges, including $92,000 in payments from various agencies for charity patients, and, from all sources, earned total revenues exceeding $892,000. Of the $568,000 received in resident charges, approximately $111,000, or about 20 percent, was earned by its nursing care section through various sources, including medicare payments. During this same period, its direct and indirect purchases of goods and supplies from outside the State of Missouri approximated $16,000. The Employer urges the Board to decline to assert jurisdiction over it because, it contends, its nonprofit religiously affiliated operation is noncommercial in nature, and because it is not "truly a nursing home." We find no merit in these contentions, all of which previously have been raised, considered, and rejected in Drexel Home, Inc., 182 NLRB No. 151. We determined, in Drexel, wherein jurisdiction was asserted over a nonprofit health-care operation func- tioning as an extended care facility, that inasmuch as the operations of nonprofit extended care facilities are analogous to, and substantially affect commerce in the same manner as, similar proprietary health- care facilities,6 an employer's nonprofit status does not provide a proper ground on which to decline to assert jurisdiction over such an operation. This conclusion is fully applicable to the Employer's extend- ed care facility which clearly falls within the category over which jurisdiction was asserted in Drexel' and which, by virtue of its direct and indirect purchases and its participation in the nationally oriented medi- ' A public assistance welfare program which provides certain medical benefits to medically indigent persons regardless age ` See University Nursing Home, Inc, 168 NLRB No 53, wherein jurisdiction was asserted over for-profit nursing home and related facilities ' "An establishment with permanent facilities that include inpatient beds, and with medical services, including continuous nursing services, to provide treatment to patients who require inpatient care but who do not require hospital services " 185 NLRB No. 86 GOOD SAMARITAN HOME FOR THE AGED care program, exerts a similar and substantial impact on commerce which is not affected significantly by its nonprofit status, its religious affiliation, or its title. Accordingly, as the Employer receives in excess of $100,000 in gross revenues per annum, we find that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Employer's extended care facility.' 2. Petitioner claims to represent certain of the Employer's employees. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain of the Employer's employ- ees within the meaning of Section 9 (c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of "all employ- ees . . . excluding office clerical and professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act." The Employer agrees basically with the forego- ing unit and, by stipulation, the parties agreed to exclude also, as supervisors, the Employer' s adminis- trator, assistant administrator, director of nurse serv- ices, the supervisor of both housekeeping and food management departments, two of the Employer's five licensed practical nurses, and, as professional employ- ees, the Employer's three registered nurses. Each of the two licensed practical nurses (LPNs) stipulated to be excluded are in charge of a work shift where they direct the work of three or four nurses aides. The remaining LPNs stipulated to be 199 included in the unit "are not permitted under the Medicare licensing to be Charge Nurses." Therefore, we find, in accord with the agreement of the parties and in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purpos- es of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. All employees of the Employer at its St. Louis, Missouri, location, excluding the administrator, assistant administrator, director of nurse services, the supervisor of both housekeeping and food management departments , registered nurses, such licensed practical nurses as are designated as, and carry out the duties of, charge nurses, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Drexel Home, Inc, supra, See also Bethany Home For The Aged, 185 NLRB No 85 , a case companion to this proceeding ' in order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote , all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, NL R B v Wyman-Gordon Company 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility, list containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 14 within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file the list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed