Loyola University Medical Center

234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Loyola University Medical Center and Local 134, I.B.E.W., Petitioner. Case 13-RC-12214 November 18, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Anthony E. Dom- brow. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor, Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, by direction of the Regional Director for Region 13, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. There- after, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds: Petitioner filed a petition naming as Employer the "Loyola University Medical Center" and seeking a unit of "All electrical maintenance employees em- ployed at" the Maywood campus. The Maywood campus encompasses the Medical Center, composed of the hospital, the school of medicine, and the school of dentistry. Loyola University Medical Center is a division of Loyola University of Chicago, which is a not-for-profit corporation. The Medical Center has no separate corporate existence apart from the University. The Employer has taken the position, inter alia, that the hospital portion of its operations should be deemed exempt under Section 2(2) of the Act. Corporate control of Loyola is in a governing board of 10 Jesuit trustees. Its administrative structure consists of a president and six vice presidents, with the Medical Center being the only academic branch of Loyola with its own vice president. Within the Medical Center are deans for the three schools-medical, dental, and nursing-and a direc- tor of the hospital, all of whom report to the vice president for the Medical Center. There is an assistant vice president who is in charge of the Medical Center administrative services group, which services all the four components of the Center. Each component composes its own budget, and work done by individu- als who service the Medical Center generally is i Approximately 99 percent of the hospital revenues come from patient billing. 2 The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the record, unopposed by the Employer, to adduce evidence which became available after the close of charged back against the component for whom the work was done. The main campus of Loyola is located in Chicago on the lake front, 25 miles from -the Maywood campus. The school of nursing is located on the Lake Front campus and is not physically part of the Medical Center although it is administratively under the Medical Center. Another campus in downtown Chicago is located 11-1/2 miles from the Maywood medical facility. At the Maywood location, Loyola has constructed two buildings: (1) the hospital-medi- cal school building, with the hospital portion taking up about 60 percent of that space, and (2) the dental school. The hospital, whose primary object is patient care, has a 451-bed capacity. The Medical Center employs about 1,100 persons, of whom 650 serve only the hospital, 350 serve only the medical school or dental school, and about 100 serve the Medical Center at large. All are paid from the Medical Center payroll account, which comes from Medical Center revenues.' University funds are used only to meet deficits. Petitioner seeks a unit of seven electrical mainte- nance employees. Of these, four are electricians whose work entails maintenance and installation of electri- cal equipment, lighting equipment, mechanical appa- ratus, pumps, power vaults, etc., described as all the electrical work "behind the plug." Approximately 55 percent of these electricians' work is related to the hospital, and performed therein, and the remaining 45 percent is performed in the medical school and dental school. They do not go to any other campus. Also being sought is a millwright, who spends virtually all his working time in the hospital where he is engaged in the fabrication of parts for and maintenance of the automatic conveyor system that delivers food and s>:tpplies around the hospital.2 He is also responsible for the electrical contacts, relays, and controls of the conveyor system. As the supplier of the system suggested that a millwright be hired to provide for maintenance of the system,, the supplier has reim- bursed the hospital for the millwright's wages for the first year. The two other employees sought by Petitioner are classified as "electronic technicians." They spend between 75 to 80 percent of their time working in the hospital, and their shop, or electronics laboratory, is located in the hospital. The electronic equipment serviced by the technicians exists throughout the Medical Center, but is primarily found in the hospital, and is, generally, directly related to patient care, consisting of physiological monitoring systems, pa- the hearing, showing that the alleged millwright is in fact an electrician We hereby deny that motion, but note that the facts, as stated in Petitioner's brief, are not contrary to those contained in the record. 194 NLRB No. 30 LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 235 tient monitoring equipment, closed-circuit television systems, call page, and wireless page systems. Although the Board has recently asserted jurisdic- tion over non-profit universities, the issue here is whether Section 2(2) of the Act precludes the Board from assertingjurisdiction over a hospital operated by such a university where no part of the net earnings of that hospital inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. Petitioner claims that Section 2(2) does not preclude the Board from asserting jurisdiction, and that Section 2(2) should be construed narrowly to apply to organizations or associations that exclusively operate hospitals. How- ever, we note that Section 2(2) does not limit its applicability in the manner suggested by Petitioner,3 nor has the legislative history been shown to support Petitioner's assertion. We must, therefore, apply the literal language of the Act to the facts as found herein, attempting, of course, to conform our application to the apparent spirit of that section. The Board has had the opportunity of construing the exemption of Section 2(2) in prior cases. In so doing, the Board has considered whether the associa- tion controlling or operating the nonprofit hospital has been a profit-making organization. The Board has disregarded the corporate facade, and has asserted 3 Section 2(2) of the Act excludes from the term "employer ," inter aha, "any corporation or association operating a hospital, if no part of the net earnings mures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual." 4 General Electric Company, Kadlec Hospital, 89 NLRB 1247; Miami Inspiration Hospital, Inc., 175 NLRB 636; Parkvue Medical Center and jurisdiction where it has found private individuals or shareholders could benefit .4 Here, however, the opposite is the case. Loyola, as the operating or controlling arm of the hospital, is a nonprofit university. This nonprofit university operates and supports a nonprofit hospital. Therefore, it appears that insofar as Loyola furnishes hospital services, it falls within the statutory exclusion of enterprises over which the Board may assert jurisdiction. In the present case, we note that the employees petitioned for spend from 55 to 100 percent of their time performing services directly for and in the hospital. They are, essentially, employees of a nonprofit hospital, the earnings of which hospital do not inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. We conclude that because of the specific exemption in Section 2(2) of the statute, we are precluded from asserting jurisdiction herein. Accord- ingly, we shall dismiss the petition.5 ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER FANNING, dissenting in part: For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Duke University, 194 NLRB No. 31, I dissent from my colleagues' refusal to assertjurisdiction herein. General Hospital, 183 NLRB No. 65 5 Sierra Hospital Foundation, 181 NLRB No. 143; The Wesleyan Foundation, 171 NLRB No. 22; Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 165 NLRB 743; cf. United Hospital Services, Inc., 172 NLRB No. 188