St. Luke's Hospital

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD St. Luke's Hospital and Engineers & Scientists of California, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-14283 January 9, 1978 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY On August 12, 1977, the Acting Regional Director for Region 20 issued his Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found appropriate a unit limited to all unrepre- sented technical employees employed by the Em- ployer at its San Francisco, California, facility. Thereafter, in accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review, contending, inter alia, that such single-em- ployer unit is inappropriate as its unrepresented technicals are residual to an established multiem- ployer unit which includes other of its technicals. By telegraphic order dated September 7, 1977, the National Labor Relations Board granted the request for review as to the unit finding, denied review in all other respects, and stayed the election pending decision on review.' Thereafter, the Board received a brief on review from the Employer and amici curiae briefs from the Associated Hospitals of San Francis- co and the East Bay; Alexian Brothers Hospital of San Jose, Inc.; and The American Hospital Associa- tion. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this proceeding, including all briefs submitted herein, 2 with respect to the issues under review and finds that no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the unrepresented technical em- ployees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: The Employer is a nonprofit, short-term, acute- care hospital in San Francisco, California. Since Member Murphy dissented. 2 No briefs were filed by either labor organization. 3 Hospital and Institutional Workers Union, Local 250. SEIU, AFL- CIo. I Senior Licensed Vocational Nurse, Licensed Vocational Nurse, Obstet- ncal Technician. Surgical Technician. Orthopedic Technician, and Psychiat- nc Technician. The record does not show whether the Employer has employees in all these classifications or the number of its contractual technical employees. I X-ray technician, respiratory therapy technician. histology technician, cytology technician, physical therapy technician, and pharmacy technician. The parties stipulated to the technical status of the first four classifications 234 NLRB No. 16 August 1960, it has been a member of the Affiliated Hospitals of San Francisco (herein called the Affilia- tion), which represents a multiemployer group of eight hospitals in the San Francisco Bay area in "the formulation of standards respecting wages and con- ditions of employment, the negotiation of collective bargaining labor contracts, the interpretation of such contracts, and the adjustment of labor disputes." The Employer employs approximately 800 employees, most of whom are represented by unions other than the Petitioner under one of five multiemployer affiliation contracts. Since 1941, the Intervenor3 has represented service, maintenance, and some techni- cal employees of affiliation members. The 1977-79 contract covers approximately 2,000 to 2,200 em- ployees, including 575 employees in 5 technical classifications at the member hospitals.4 The Petitioner sought a unit of all-some 11- radiologic technologists (X-ray technicians) em- ployed by the Employer. The Acting Regional Director enlarged upon this request to find appropri- ate a unit of all the Employer's unrepresented technical employees, some 37 employees in 6 techni- cal classifications.5 He did so because "[t]he Board has not . . . found appropriate any fragment of a technical unit or any unit consisting of less than all unrepresented technical employees of a hospital-em- ployer." In finding appropriate, contrary to the Employer, a unit limited to the unrepresented technicals at the Employer's hospital, the Acting Regional Director stated that "[t]he fact that there is a history of multiemployer bargaining for other employees, as in the instant case, does not preclude the establishment of an appropriate single-employer unit of unrepre- sented employees in a different category." However, we disagree with his application of this principle to the facts of this case.6 On the contrary, we agree with the Employer and the amici curiae that this case is controlled by the holding in The Los Angeles Statler Hilton Hotel,7 which was restated in Pacific Drive-In Theatres Corp.,8 as follows: An established bargaining history on a multi- employer basis will determine the scope required for a unit of previously unrepresented employees if those employees are in excluded fringe classifi- and were in agreement that the EKG technician, EEG technician, and darkroom technician are not technicals. 6 We regard Macy's San Francisco and Selignan & Latz, Inc., jointly, 120 NLRB 69 (1958), cited by the Acting Regional Director, as clearly distinguishable on its facts. In that case, the Board found that beauty salon employees of a lessee constituted a different category from department store employees of the lessor and were a separate appropriate unit, despite a multiemployer contract covering department store employees, excluding salon employees. 7 129 NLRB 1349, 1351-52(1961). s 167NLRB661 (1967). 130 ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL cations which otherwise lack homogeneity, cohe- siveness, or separate identity, and are merely residual to the main body of employees in the established unit. The unrepresented technical employees herein do not, contrary to the Acting Regional Director's finding, constitute a "different category" from the Employer's represented technical employees. Nor do they constitute a homogeneous, separately identifi- able group with internal cohesiveness, within the meaning of Los Angeles Statler. Thus, they work in different units which are physically separated from each other, are variously supervised, and have the same terms and conditions of employment as other noncontractual employees of the hospital. They have no greater community of interest with one another than they have with the Employer's represented technical employees or with their counterparts em- ployed by other members of the affiliation and similarly unrepresented. Under these circumstances, the unrepresented technical employees herein are residual to the multiemployer unit which includes the represented technical employees. An appropriate residual unit of such employees must be coextensive in scope with the multiemployer unit and not merely coextensive with the particular employer's operations and thus only a segment of the residual unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 131