Vancouver Memorial Hospital

VANCOUVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 73 Vancouver Memorial Hospital and Service Employees Local Union No. 92. Case AO-167 July 10, 1975 ADVISORY OPINION BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO This is a petition filed on February 5, 1975, by Vancouver Memorial Hospital, herein called the Em- ployer, for an Advisory Opinion, in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, seeking to de- termine whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer. On February 12, 1975, Service Employees Local Union No. 92, herein called the Union, filed a response to the petition, with an at- tached exhibit. Thereafter, on February 18, 1975, the Employer filed a brief in support of its petition. In pertinent part the petition, and brief in support thereof, and the Union's response allege as follows: (1) There is pending in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Clark County, herein called the State Court, an action, Docket No. 58655, filed by the Union, alleging discriminatory wage and ben- efit adjustments in violation of state law. (2) The Employer is a nonprofit Washington cor- poration engaged in providing health care services at its hospital facility located in Vancouver, Washing- ton. During the 1973 calendar year, a representative period, its total gross revenues from all sources ex- ceeded $500,000, and it purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located out- side the State of Washington and caused said goods to be shipped directly to its Vancouver, Washington, facility. (3) The Union admits the above commerce data, but argues that the Board has jurisdiction over the Employer regarding only those acts which occurred on or subsequent to August 25, 1974, the effective date of Public Law 93-360, which amended the Na- tional Labor Relations Act to include nonprofit hos- pitals within the Board's jurisdiction. (4) The State Court has made no findings with re- spect to the aforesaid commerce data. (5) No representation or unfair labor practice pro- ceeding involving the same labor dispute is pending before the Board. An unfair labor practice charge, Case 36-CA-2662, was filed by the Union on or about December 17, 1974, alleging that the Employer discriminatorily granted wage increases to its non- union employees, which charge was dismissed by the Regional Director on the ground that the conduct alleged occurred at a time when the Employer, a nonprofit hospital, was exempt from the coverage of the Act. The Regional Director advised that, by his refusal to issue a complaint, he was not passing on the issue of whether the Employer's business opera- tions met established Board standards for asserting jurisdiction over it. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opin- ion that: 1. The Employer is a nonprofit Washington cor- poration engaged in providing health care services at its hospital facility located in Vancouver, Washing- ton. 2. Recent amendments to the National Labor Re- lations Act, supra, extended the Board's jurisdiction to nonprofit hospitals. The Board has previously as- serted jurisdiction over proprietary hospitals which come within its statutory jurisdiction and have an annual gross volume of $250,000.1 As the Employer here meets our basic jurisdictional standard and does a gross volume in excess of $500,000 which meets any of our existing health care standards, and as its out- of-state purchases bring its operations within our statutory jurisdiction, we conclude that it would ef- fectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein? 3. With respect to the Regional Director's refusal to issue a complaint in Case 36-CA-2662, which the Union argues renders this proceeding moot, we find that the Regional Director's ruling was based on the fact that the Board lacked subject matter jurisdiction at the time the alleged conduct occurred, and his re- fusal to issue a complaint did not resolve the under- lying issue of the Board's jurisdiction over the Em- ployer on or subsequent to the effective date of Public Law 93-360. Accordingly, the petition herein is properly before the Board. Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, that, on the allegation presented herein, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the operations of the Employ- er with respect to labor disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act, which occurred on or subsequent to August 25, 1974, the effective date of Public Law 93-360. 1 Butte Medical Properties, d/b/a Medical Center Hospital, 168 NLRB 266 (1967). 2 See Yale-New Haven Hospital, 214 NLRB No. 34 (1974): East Oakland Community Health Alliance, Inc., 218 NLRB No. 193 (1975). 219 NLRB No. 15