Damon Medical Laboratory, Inc.

DAMON MEDICAL LABORATORY Damon Medical Laboratory, Inc. and Independent Driver Alliance of New England, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-15120 January 20, 1978 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hear- ing was held on April 19, 1977, before Hearing Officer Stephen J. Sundheim. On May 31, 1977, the Regional Director for Region I issued a Decision and Direction of Election in which he found a unit comprised of all drivers employed at the Employer's main laboratory in Needham Heights, Massachu- setts, but excluding all other employees at the Employer's satellite labs and bleeding stations, lab technicians, medical technologists, cytotechnologists, lab assistants, bleeders, patient service representa- tives, laboratory aides, customer relations clerks, LDM operators, office clerical employees, sales employees, serum separators, accounting department employees, professional employees, guards and su- pervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the Employer, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, filed a request for review and supporting brief. In its request for review the Employer maintained that (1) the Regional Director erred by rejecting its contention that it is within the health care industry and that the special considerations applicable to unit determinations in that industry, the congressional admonition against undue proliferation of bargaining units, should be applied to its operations; and (2) in finding the requested unit appropriate, the Regional Director failed to consider the extent of the drivers' functional integration into the overall operation of the laboratory and ignored the community of interest that drivers share with other laboratory employees, which establishes that only an overall unit of all employees is appropriate for bargaining. By telegraphic order of June 28, 1977, the Board granted the Employer's request for review. 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 case with respect to the issues under review, includ- ing the request for review and the brief filed by the Employer, and makes the following findings: The Employer operates a diagnostic medical labo- ratory service testing human blood, body fluid, and tissue for hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and individual doctors. The Employer's main laboratory is located in Needham Heights, Massachusetts. The Employer also operates two satellite laboratories and four so-called bleeding stations at other locations within Massachusetts. All the employees classified as drivers by the Employer, approximately 12 in number, are assigned to the Needham Heights laboratory. There are approximately 70 employees in the overall unit which the Employer maintains is the only appropriate unit for bargaining. As found by the Regional Director, drivers pick up specimens from customers on their assigned routes and deliver to these customers test results and supplies used by the customers in taking blood and other samples. Drivers must be at least 18 years of age and possess a driver's license. Drivers on the day shift report to dispatcher Richard Eaton, a stipulated supervisor, who is located in a room known as the drivers' room. Drivers and one laboratory aide are the only employees required to punch a timeclock. Drivers spend most of their worktime away from the laboratory premises servicing customers on their assigned routes. In finding that a unit limited to drivers is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining, the Re- gional Director concluded that drivers share a distinct community of interest separate and apart from other employees. In this connection, the Re- gional Director observed that drivers perform a special work function, have only limited work con- tacts with other laboratory employees, and work under separate supervision. In addition, the Regional Director relied on the fact that a driver must hold a valid automobile operator's license to operate the automobiles which the Employer uses for transport- ing specimens and for delivering test results and supplies, a requirement not applicable to other laboratory employees. Finally, the Regional Director 333 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD found no evidence that drivers normally progress to other job classifications.' Our review of the record discloses the following facts: all laboratory employees, other than the professional staff, are paid on an hourly basis; all employees work staggered shifts; and all are entitled to the same fringe benefits. There is an employee cafeteria used by all employees and there are no special educational requirements for drivers as op- posed to other classifications of employees such as bleeders or lab assistants. Although drivers are required to hold a valid state operator's license to operate the vehicles used by the Employer, drivers are not subject to any other special licensing require- ments by the State. The record also indicates that on occasion employees other than the drivers operate the Employer's vehicles. Although it is true, as found by the Regional Director, that drivers are not directly involved in the actual testing of specimens and that most drivers spend a majority of their worktime away from the laboratory, the record discloses that several other employee classifications are not directly involved in testing and that drivers have frequent and varied work contacts with other laboratory employees. Thus, drivers and lab assistants frequently work together in the serum separation room unpacking the specimens which the drivers have picked up on their routes. Drivers enter the customer service area of the laboratory to pick up test results which the customer service personnel have collected for delivery to the Employer's customers. Drivers also have contact with customer service personnel in the course of transmitting orders for supplies which they receive from customers or in discussing customer com- plaints. Occasionally, drivers answer telephones in the customer service area. Drivers also enter the stockroom to prepare supplies for delivery to custom- ers. In some instances technical employees rather than drivers will prepare supplies for delivery by the drivers. One driver, stipulated by the parties to be properly included in whatever unit is appropriate for drivers, concededly spends 85 percent of his time in the laboratory. I The Regional Director also found, and we agree, that the Employer is not a health care institution within the meaning of the 1974 health care amendments. As the Regional Director pointed out, the legislative history makes it clear that the special provisions of the Act applicable to health care institutions relate to "patient care situations" and not to "purely administra- tive health care connected facilities." See 120 Cong. Rec. H4594 (daily ed., May 30, 1974); 120 Cong. Rec. S7310 (daily ed., May 7, 1974). We conclude, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the Employer's operation is The record also shows that employees other than drivers are engaged in the work of transporting specimens and in delivering test results. For example, employees assigned to the bleeder stations frequently transport specimens to the main laboratory for testing. And, depending on the situation, test results may be delivered to a customer by a driver, tele- phoned to the customer by customer service person- nel, or teleprocessed to a satellite laboratory for delivery by a laboratory assistant. Finally, the record discloses, contrary to the Regional Director's finding, that at least the six or seven drivers assigned to the night shift share common immediate supervision with other laborato- ry employees. Thus, the stipulated night-shift super- visor, Dumont, not only supervises drivers but also supervises lab assistants and computer operators. And the record indicates, contrary to the Regional Director, that at least four former drivers have advanced from that classification to other jobs within the laboratory. Although in appropriate cases the Board has found that drivers may constitute separate units where the drivers comprise distinct and homogeneous groups whose duties and interests are different from other employees, 2 it is evident from the record evidence set forth herein that there is insufficient basis for such a finding in the instant case. To the contrary, based on the record evidence of common supervision, overlap- ping job functions, and frequent work contacts, as well as their enjoyment of common fringe benefits and other conditions of employment, we find that the drivers herein share a community of interest with the Employer's other employees and lack a separate such interest among themselves and hence that a unit limited to drivers is inappropriate for collective bargaining. 3 Accordingly, and inasmuch as the Peti- tioner disclaimed at the hearing any interest in representing drivers in any broader unit found appropriate, we shall order that the petition be dismissed. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. analogous to that of blood banks which the Board has found not to be involved in patient care. See San Diego Blood Bank, 219 NLRB 116 (1975); Sacramento Medical Foundation Blood Bank, 220 NLRB 904 (1975). Accordingly, we find no merit in the Employer's contention. 2 See Mc-Mor-Han Trucking Co., Inc., 166 NLRB 700(1967). 3 Cf. Center for Laboratory Medicine, Inc. d/b/a Damon Medical Center, 234 NLRB 387 (1977). 334