Children's Hospital Of Pittsburgh

588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh and Children's Hos- pital Technical Employees Independent Association, Petitioner. Case 6-RC-7167 January 27, 1976 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Thomas M. Lucas. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedures, Series 8, as amended, this case was transferred by direction of the Regional Di- rector for Region 6 to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. 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 proceeding, the Board finds: 1. The parties stipulated that the Employer was involved in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. However, the issue was raised at the hear- ing whether the Employer was so intimately related to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that the Board should decline to assert jurisdiciton. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, the Employer herein, is a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation spe- cializing in pediatric health care and employs a staff of approximately 1,100. The hospital is governed by a board of trustees who are selected from the com- munity at large, and who appoint an administrator to manage the hospital. The administration of the hos- pital is divided among an associate administrator and three assistant administrators. The board of trus- tees also selects a medical director and chief of staff who is responsible both to the board and to the ad- ministrator. The medical director/chief of staff is also chairman of the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School. The Employer's main facility is in a complex of hospitals near the University of Pittsburgh medical, pharmacy, dental, and nursing schools. The Employ- er also utilizes other buildings for certain functions. Along with six other hospitals in the near vicinity, the Employer is a member of the University Health Cen- ter of Pittsburgh.' The center was incorporated about 1962 to improve teaching, research, and clinical facil- ities for the education of medical, dental, nursing, and other university students. The center also serves to increase efficiency and cut costs of member hospi- tals. The center's board of trustees consists of repre- sentatives from five member hospitals and the chan- cellor of the University of Pittsburgh, who represents the Psychiatric Institute, which was described as an instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylva- nia managed by the University. The Veterans Ad- ministration Hospital is an associate member for the purpose of teaching and receiving services provided by other member hospitals. The member hospitals have set up a number of centralized services, such as laundry, data processing, pharmacy, and central laboratories, each of which is run by a member hospital. Children's, for example, runs the central laboratories but charges other mem- ber hospitals for the services provided. Member hos- pitals have agreed not to appoint any physicians or dentists to their staffs who do not have academic ap- pointments with the University in the school of medi- cine, dentistry, or public health. The salaries of these professionals are shared by the University and the hospitals in proportion to the time spent performing academic or hospital duties. Many of the hospital doctors spend only a small portion of their time teaching-some spend but a few hours per day for a few weeks. The center hospitals have also adopted uniform policies for internships and residencies. Al- though interns receive their checks from the Univer- sity, the member hospitals where they serve pay their full salaries. Chief residents, however, are paid by the University because they spend most of their time teaching. The record also indicates that member hospitals have a "gentlemen's agreement" allowing personnel to retain seniority when transferring from one insti- tution to another. However, an effort is made to avoid raiding among the members, and there is, in fact, little transfer at other than the professional lev- els and in some centralized services. Member hospi- tals meet and agree with the University on common budget items. Although the Employer, through membership in the center, maintains a relationship with the Univer- sity, as well as other member hospitals, the Employer remains a separate corporation, with an individual 2 The other members are Presbyterian University Hospital, an adult gen- The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the rec- eral care facility , Magee Women's Hospital, Montefiore Hospital, an adult ord, including the briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of general care facility, Eye and Ear Hospital; Western Pyschiatric Institute the parties. and Clinic; and Veterans Administration Hospital. 222 NLRB No. 90 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH 589 history and its own board of trustees. Subject to the provisions of the center for doctors and dentists, nei- ther the center nor the University controls the per- sonnel policies of the Employer. The Employer, sub- ject to the above limitations, does its own hiring and firing, sets its own salaries, and maintains its own personnel policies. In this connection, the Employer has a history of collective bargaining with the Oper- ating Engineers for a maintenance unit. Under the provisions of the center's bylaws, a member hospital need not utilize any of the central services, nor need it provide any such service. Thus, for example, Montefiore Hospital does not utilize the central laundry services, while a nonmember facility, Mercy Hospital, does. The record also shows that if the Employer were to stop running the central labo- ratories the laboratories would be transferred to an- other hospital for management.' A member retains its right to refuse to abide by any center decision. In addition, the bylaws permit a member to withdraw. Other than through its participation in the center, the University does not concern itself with the adminis- tration, labor relations, or personnel policies of the Employer, and, other than approval of employees on its faculty, is not involved in hiring, firing, or disci- pling employees. From the foregoing it is apparent that the Univer- sity of Pittsburgh exercises only minimal control over the Employer, especially with respect to nondoctors. More important, whatever the degree of control by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over the Univer- sity of Pittsburgh, the control by the Commonwealth over the Employer is de minimis. The University of Pittsburgh is not a state university but a private insti- tution related to the Commonwealth. The University is partially funded by the Commonwealth. One third of the board of trustees is appointed by the Com- monwealth and includes Commonwealth officials. Although the Commonwealth may exercise a degree of control over the University and although the Uni- versity may have a relationship to the Employer through the center, Commonwealth control over the Employer is, at most, indirect, dilute, and remote. For the above reasons, we find that the Employer is not an instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, we find that it will effec- tuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Employer. 2. Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer 3 Apparently, central laboratory employees would be included in such a transfer. within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting basically of all technical employees at the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. It contends that the appropriate unit should include all regular full-time and part-time technicians, technical/professional employees, assis- tant section heads, and technical clerical employees, including those in central clinical chemistry, hema- tology, bacteriology, histology, research, X-ray, inha- lation therapy, physical therapy, operating room, im- munology, pathology, and central laboratories. The Petitioner would exclude all physicians, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, nurses assistants, service and maintenance employees, office clerical employees, seasonal employees, part-time student employees, all other employees, guards, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that a "wall-to-wall" unit of all employees at Children's is the minimal appro- priate unit for collective bargaining. In the alterna- tive, the Employer contends that the Board should find separate units of all professional employees, all technical employees, service and maintenance em- ployees, and office clerical employees. The Employer would exclude all assistant section heads as supervi- sory. There also exist issues regarding supervisory status of particular individuals and whether certain employees are technicals. Although neither party took the position that the unit must include employees of other hospitals affili- ated with the University Health Center of Pennsylva- nia, the issue was raised at the hearing. The member hospitals are individually administered and have the right to sever their membership in the center practi- cally at will. Within certain limited exceptions, none involving the unit sought herein, labor relations poli- cies are individually administered. The Employer does its own hiring, maintains its own personnel poli- cy, and individually conducts labor negotiations. The Employer also does all hiring for the central labora- tories. Nothing in the bylaws of the center provides for the conduct of labor negotiations. The center has not been given authority to bargain on behalf of the Employer, although it has been requested to advise the Employer on labor relations. As indicated above, the Employer has bargained with the Operating En- gineers in a maintenance department unit. The Em- ployer is currently subject to the second of consecu- tive 3-year bargaining agreements. Although transfer and interchange of employees occurs, it occurs pri- marily in the central services. It does not regularly occur throughout the hospital operations. According- ly, we find that the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh is a separate employer for the purposes of collective 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining .4 The so-called central laboratories of the center are located in various member hospitals and other area buildings. However, they are run, staffed, and controlled by the Employer. Accordingly, they are included within the appropriate unit. The Board has held that a separate unit of techni- cal employees in a health care facility will be granted "when such a unit is sought and the facts indicate that the employees in that unit are, in fact, technical employees." Nathan and Miriam Barnert Memorial Hospital Association d/b/a Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, 217 NLRB No. 132 (1975). Accordingly, we find that a separate unit of the Employer's technical employees constitutes an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. Having affirmed that a unit of technical employees in a hospital is an appropriate unit, we shall now consider whether the various categories of employees whom the Petitioner seeks to include in the unit are, in fact, technical employees. In determining whether employees are technical employees, we shall apply the Board's criteria that technical employees are those "who do not meet the strict requirements of the term `professional employee' as defined in the Act but whose work is of a technical nature involving the use of independent judgment and requiring the exer- cise of specialized training usually acquired in col- leges or technical schools or through special cours- es." s Medical Technologists: Children's Hospital Em- ploys a number of persons classified as medical tech- nologists in various laboratories. The Petitioner con- tends that they are technical employees, or that if they are professional they should be permitted to vote whether they want to be included within the technical unit because of a close community of inter- est. The Employer contends that they are profession- al employees. Medical technologists in the hospital are graduates of a 4-year college course with a bachelor of science in medical technology and 1 year of clinical experi- ence. Upon passing an examination, they are certi- fied by the American Society of Clinical Patholo- gists. A person may also be certified if he has a bachelor's degree in chemistry, physics, or biology and completes 4 years of clinical experience in the laboratory. Although certified technologists work side by side with technicians, the technologists generally perform the more complex assignments. They must be able to perform the newest tests using the most sophisticated laboratory equipment. Technologists are expected to 4 Cf. Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento, Inc, 217 NLRB No 131 (1975) 5 Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722, 724-725 6 See Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento, Inc, supra (1959). have the knowledge and ability to use all the labora- tory equipment and to know if such equipment is properly functioning. They are expected to recognize deviations in test results and to be able to find the incongruities. We find the medical technologists to be profes- sional employees. They have an advanced knowledge acquired by a prolonged course of intellectual in- struction, and they perform intellectually varied work requiring the exercise of judgment and discre- tion. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the technical unit. There are also several laboratory employees who have completed their degree requirements for medi- cal technologists, but who have not yet attained certi- fication. Their job responsibilities appear nearly identical to that of certified medical technologists. Since these employees are performing professional work and since they are seeking to obtain certifica- tion, we find that they too are professional employees falling within the definition of Section 2(12)(b), if not 2(12)(a), of the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude such employees from the technical unit. The laboratories also employ a number of persons who have not been certified as technologists and who are not attempting to satisfy certification require- ments. They may possess degrees in chemistry, biolo- gy, or related science. Although they perform work alongside certified technologists and do many of the jobs performed by certified technologists, the record does not establish that they are professional employ- ees within the meaning of the Act. The Act requires a professional to have both varied judgmental work and a formal training in the profession. On balance, we find that the employees who are not certified or seeking certification as medical technologists do not meet the strict requirements of "professional employ- ees" but are technicals. Accordingly, we shall include them within the unit. The Petitioner, in the alternative, 'requests that medical technologists, as professional employees, be allowed to participate in a self-determination elec- tion to determine whether they wish to be repre- sented in a technical unit. To do so here would be inappropriate, since such an election might result in the establishment of a unit limited to medical tech- nologists, a unit, absent unusual circumstances, we have found to be inappropriate.' Accordingly, we re- ject Petitioner's alternate request? Licensed Practical Nurses: It is clear from the rec- ord, and no party contends otherwise, that nursing assistants are not technical employees. Nursing assis- tants are not required to be high school graduates, 7 See The Presbyterian Medical Center, 218 NLRB No 192 (1975) CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH 591 they are not licensed, they belong to no association, and their training is basic bedside -training such as that given nurses aides. In addition to the 60 to 70 nursing assistants at Children's Hospital, the Em- ployer employs 2 licensed practical nurses. The LPN's have taken specialized training and are li- censed, having passed a state examination. General- ly, LPN's are included in a unit of technical employ- ees. Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, supra. However, the Board is not welded to such a position and will exclude LPN's from a technical unit in ap- propriate circumstances. Bay Medical Center, Inc., 218 NLRB No. 100 (1975). Such circumstances are present here. Medical nursing care for children is more complex and demanding than nursing care for adults. As a result, the Employer hires a much higher ratio of reg- istered nurses in proportion to assistants than most hospitals. In fact, the Employer does not hire LPN's as such and is apparently phasing out the hiring of any LPN's. It is clear from the record that the LPN's perform the same work as nursing assistants and do not need to exercise the requisite independent judg- ment to be classed as technicals. Although the LPN's possess the necessary technical training, they do not, in this case, perform technical work. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the-unit. Laboratory Technicians and Trainees: The Employ- er employs certified technicians, uncertified techni- cians, and laboratory trainees. Certified technicians have completed a 12-18-month training course and are certified by the American Society of Clinical Pa- thologists. We find they are technical employees and are included in the unit. Uncertified laboratory tech- nicians have received on-the-job training. They per- form many of the same tests as the certified techni- cians. In some labs they do not, however, perform the more complex standard tests. In view of their close relationship with and their duties similar to those of certified technicians, we find they are techni- cal employees. Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, su- pra. Two of the central laboratories have trainees. Trainees must be high school graduates. The labora- tories provide a 1-year course and certify those who pass the examination. The certification extends only to the laboratories. In the first 3 months of training they receive no compensation, and they are not guar- anteed jobs upon successful completion of their training. These employees undergoing training do not meet the standard for technical employees, and we shall exclude them from the unit. Those who have successfully completed their training and received laboratory certification and who are working for the Employer perform the same tests as certified techni- cians. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit. Lab Clerks: This classification includes laboratory charting clerks, clerk technicians, and labor - assis- tants (dishwashers). Laboratory clerks and techni- cians accept specifications, punch information into a computer, spin down blood, and write requisitions. Laboratory assistants are primarily dishwashers and messengers. With few exceptions, the lab clerks do not involve themselves in laboratory testing proce- dures. They are not required to have any formal edu- cation and do not receive other than minimal on-the- job training. They are at the lower level of pay classi- fication. The Petitioner does not contend that they are tech- nical employees, but argues that they should be in- cluded in the technical unit because of a close com- munity of interest with the technicians. In this connection, the Petitioner argues that they have no community of interest with service and maintenance employees and are clearly not office clericals. None- theless, it is apparent that lab clerks are not technical employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit. Part-time Employees: The Employer employs a number of part-time employees who perform techni- cal work. Generally, the technical part-time employ- ees are students, primarily in the University of Pitts- burgh dental school. Those who work more than 20 hours per . week receive pro rata vacation benefits, but, otherwise, part-time employees receive no fringe benefits. The part-time employees with whom we are here concerned are those who perform technical work and who by virture of their education possess the necessary technical skills. The Petitioner would exclude part-time employees because, as students, they do not expect to be perma- nent employees of the hospital. However, the test as to whether part-time employees should be included is not based on the expectancy of permanent employ- ment, but is based on the part-time employees' rela- tionship to the job-whether they perform unit work and whether they have a sufficient regularity of work to give them a community of interest with full-time employees with respect to wages, hours, and other working conditions. For this reason we shall, as we traditionally have, include regular part-time employ- ees who perform technical work in the unit herein found appropriate. The Employer also hires a number of summer em- ployees. There is no indication in the record that they have any expectancy of continued employment either in other summers or throughout the year. Ac- cordingly, they shall be excluded from the unit as temporary employees. - Research Technicians: There are a number of tech- 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nical employees employed in a variety of research projects funded by various grants. The wages and benefits such employees receive are generally similar to other technicians but can be subject to negotiation depending on qualifications and the size of research funds. The grants vary in duration and in re- strictions. Since the record is inadequate to de- termine which grant projects employing technicians are of such a nature as to establish a community of interest with other technicians, we shall allow techni- cal employees in such projects to vote subject to chal- lenge. Supervisory Status of Section Heads and Assistant Section Heads A number of questions were litigated at the hear- ing concerning the supervisory status of section heads and assistant section heads in the Employer's various laboratories and technical departments. Al- though there are differences in the departments, the Employer's policy is basically uniform. Departmen- tal differences will be pointed out below in our dis- cussion of the individual departments. The overall administration of the hospital is by an administrator who delegates authority to an associate administrator and three assistant administrators. The medical staff is separately administered. Each de- partment or division is run by a department head or division head, herein uniformly called section heads. Official policy provides that section heads have au- thority to receive excuses for absence, require medi- cal excuses, agree to pay sick leave, grant relief peri- ods, grant overtime, advise on scheduling, and promote employees. Some have effectively recom- mended discharge of employees under them. They spend the vast majority of their time in administra- tive functions. Under the hospital's uniform pay poli- cy, section heads and assistant section heads general- ly as designated by a single or double "X." Technicians are designated merely with a "P" and a number. The record is clear and it is undisputed that section heads are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. In dispute is the status of assistant section heads. Like section heads, the assistants do not receive over- time. Some of these persons are professionals and would be excluded from the unit in any event. How- ever, it appears from the record that others are non- professionals. Assistant section heads do not have the authority to hire, fire, discipline, or promote em- ployees or to effectively recommend the same. Assis- tant section heads spend most of their time perform- ing unit work. Generally they spend a small part of their time assisting section heads in quality control and administrative tasks. With few exceptions, they do not attend laboratory managers' meetings. With the presence of a section head to direct employees, the record shows that assistant section heads do not responsibly direct employees. On this record, it ap- pears that assistant section heads are more akin to leadmen than supervisors. For these reasons, we find, with the exceptions below, that assistant section heads are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Robert Anderson is located at Falk Clinic, where the Employer has laboratory facilities; Katheryn Frisch is located in an office building. Because they are isolated from the main facilities, no higher super- visory authority is present in the immediate vicinity. It also appears that Barbara Vale in bacteriology has been delegated authority commensurate with Ander- son and Frisch. Each of the three attends the month- ly laboratory managers' meetings. Because of the particular circumstances in which these persons are involved, we find that each responsibly directs em- ployees. Accordingly, we find that these particular individuals, whether called assistant section heads or section heads, are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Departments With Technicians To help clarify our Decision herein, we shall brief- ly discuss departments in which issues were raised concerning the unit status of employees. The unit, however, is not necessarily limited to the depart- ments herein listed but includes all technical employ- ees employed by the Employer. 1. Central laboratory services is one of the central- ized laboratories for the collection of out-patient blood samples. It is located in the Falk Clinic and the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. This labora- tory is supervised by Robert Anderson (see above) and employs about five technicians and two clerks. 2. The central hematology laboratory, another of the centralized laboratories, is located in four institu- tions, including the Employer. Hematology performs a number of different hematology, urinalysis, and blood tests. Hematology is divided functionally into four sections under the direction of Dr. Breitfeld, the director. Ronald Costello is the administrative assis- tant. He and the division chiefs constitute the other supervisory authority. The assistant section heads are not supervisors. They teach students, review the work of technicians (quality control), and perform labora- tory work. They do not possess supervisory authori- ty, except in instances when section heads are absent. In this circumstance, an assistant may adjust sched- ules and reassign the workload. Such sporadic direc- CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH 593 tion of employees is not sufficient to create supervi- sory status. 3. The central clinical chemistry department is an- other centralized laboratory and is located in Presby- terian Hospital, with facilities elsewhere, including the Employer. Central clinical chemistry is function- ally divided into several sections-automated, enzy- mology, toxicology, endocrinology I, endocrinology II, microchemistry, special services for research and development, night call, and clerk charting. The lab- oratory is directed by a pathologist. An associate di- rector, also a pathologist, and a pathologist over each section constitute the supervisory staff. Interviewing, hiring, and firing is done by the ad- ministrative assistant or director, although assistant section heads may be involved in the interviewing process. Assistant section heads may prepare em- ployee report forms, but it does not appear that they make effective recommendations respecting promo- tions or disciplinary actions. Many of the sections also have senior technicians. It appears that the assis- tant section heads and senior technicians spend the majority of their time performing technical work with much of the rest spent on quality control and trouble shooting. Accordingly, we find that they are not supervisors. The Employer specifically contends that Catherine Baca and Mary Jo Sargus are supervisors. Catherine Baca is the assistant section head in the microchemis- try section. She does not have an "X" rating but rath- er a "P 11." Mary Jo Sargus, also in pay grade "P 11," is designated as assistant section head in the spe- cial services section. Catherine Baca rotates with three other assistant section heads on weekends to fill a similar position in the night call section. Baca spends 60 to 70 percent of her time doing laboratory work, with the balance spent primarily in trouble shooting and quality control. Although Baca has filled out evaluation forms, they are reviewed by the director. Any scheduling Baca does is routine. On rotation at the night call section, Baca works alone and spends her time doing laboratory work. Accord- ingly, we find that Catherine Baca is not a supervi- sor. Mary Jo Sargus has duties similar to those of Baca. Sargus spends about 90 percent of her time perform- ing unit work. Her other work is clerical and routine. She does not hire, fire, discipline, interview, or rec- ommend the same. She has filled out a performance review but the reviews are given little attention unless made by a division chief. Accordingly, we find that Mary Jo Sargus is not a supervisor within the mean- ing of the Act. 4. The central immunopathology laboratory is locat- ed in three buildings, the main laboratory being in a building owned by the University of Pittsburgh. This is the smallest of the centralized laboratories. It is under the direction of a pathologist and two assistant directors, also pathologists. As previously indicated, Katheryn Frisch is also a supervisor. She participates in employee interviews, handles grievances, authoriz- es time off and overtime, prepares employee evalua- tions, and does not routinely perform unit work. There is also an assistant section head who spends 75 percent of her time on unit work and the rest in qual- ity control and routine scheduling. Although the as- sistant head fills in, in the absence of Frisch, such sporadic assumption of supervisory status is not suf- ficient to make her a supervisor. Accordingly, we find the assistant section head is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. 5. The clinical study core laboratory has two re- search assistants who both appear to be technologists and therefore professionals. The part-time technician is a summer employee. 6. Physical therapists at the Children's Hospital have bachelor of science degrees and are certified by the American Physical Therapy Association. To re- cieve certification a therapist must have completed I year of clinical experience. The chief physical thera- pist is a supervisor. The parties stipulated that the three therapists who work in the physical therapy de- partment are professionals. Accordingly, we shall ex- clude the physical therapists from the unit. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 219 NLRB No. 78 (1975). There is a physical therapy technician in the de- partment who was certified upon completion of a 6- week course. She has received additional on-the-job training. She performs many of the same procedures as the therapists. In view of the fact that the techni- cian performs tasks similar to the therapists' and that she is registered, we find that she is a technical em- ployee. 7. Respiratory therapists must complete a 2-year training program and pass an examination to be cer- tified by the National Board of Respiratory Thera- pists. Dean Sterling is the supervisor. These employ- ees use various equipment that requires technical training to operate. They receive training and per- form work similar to that of the respiratory care tech- nicians found in Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, supra, to be technical employees. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit. 8. The endocrinology research laboratories are lo- cated in Children's Hospital and are funded by a re- search grant. Catherine Richards is a certified tech- nologist and excluded as a professional. The other technician lacks certification. Although she performs complicated research procedures, there is insufficient record evidence to determine whether she too is a 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD professional. In any event, she is involved in a fund- ed research program and will be allowed to vote sub- ject to challenge. (See above.) 9. The bacteriology laboratory employs several cer- tified technologists who are excluded from the unit as professionals. There are also two employees who are not certified technologists but who are clearly techni- cal employees included within the unit. There are also two laboratory assistants who do not qualify as technical employees and who will be excluded from the unit. Barbara Vale, mentioned above, was stipu- lated to be a supervisor. 10. The virology laboratory technicians are under the supervision of Barbara Vale. Two of the techni- cians also work for pathology. There is no evidence that any of the technicians are certified technologists, and they are included in the unit. The glass washer is not technical and shall be excluded. 11. The pathology technician is indisputably a tech- nical employee. The pathology assistants are profes- sional employees, and the other employees in the de- partment are clerical. - 12. The cardiology department employs a nurse specialist and a clinical specialist, both of whom are registered nurses and excluded. Also employed in the department is a professional social worker. The EKG technicians are not technical employees and will be excluded. Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, supra. Similarly, the cardiology aid is excluded. The cardio- vascular technologist has the responsibility of operat- ing the equipment necessary to perform a heart cath- erization. Although he had had military training, he is not a certified technologist and shall be included within the unit. The ECHO technician has had train- ing in respiratory therapy and has a college degree. She has also received additional hospital training. She is a technical employee and will be included in the unit. 13. The radiology department employs a number of X-ray technicians. Although their work is more com- plex because the patients are children, it is not signif- icantly different from the work performed by X-ray technicians in Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, su- pra. Accordingly, we shall include the X-ray techni- cians in the unit. Two employees perform the same work as registered technicians but are not themselves registered. They shall also be included in the unit. 14. Cardiopulmonary technologists operate and cal- ibrate profusionist equipment during the course of open-heart surgery and in the intensive care unit. One of the technologists is a registered nurse and shall be excluded. The others are certified by, or in the process of obtaining certification from, the American Society of Extraperporical Technology. Certification requires an examination following 2 years of experience and the completion of 100 clinic cases. We find that the cardiopulmonary technolo- gists are technical employees and shall include them in the unit. Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento, Inc., su- pra. 15. The operating room employs operating room technicians, both certified and noncertified, and ster- ilization technicians. Certification requires comple- tion of an 8-month course and a national examina- tion. Three operating room technicians are certified and one is in the process of obtaining certification. There are also three uncertified technicians. In ac- cord with Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, supra, we find that certified operating room technicians, in- cluding any in the process of obtaining certification, are technical employees. Unlike the situation in Bar- nert, the uncertified technicians perform essentially the same tasks as the certified technicians. All oper- ating room technicians have, on that basis, a commu- nity of interest. We shall include all in the unit.' Sterilization technicians are employed in the oper- ating room to wash and sterilize surgical equipment and set up packages of sterile emergency and surgical instruments. They receive 6 months' on-the-job train- ing. In Taylor Hospital, 218 NLRB No. 179 (1975), employees performing similar functions were exclud- ed from the technical unit. We shall do so here. 16. The dental clinic employs five dental assistants and a dental hygienist. The hygienist has received 2 years of training and served a 1-year internship. She is registered by the American Dental Association and licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. However, she does not meet the strict standard appli- cable to professional employees and is, we find, a technical employee. As the record is inadequate to determine whether she is a supervisor, we shall allow her to vote subject to challenge. Dental assistants take and develop X-rays and as- sist in treating the patients. Two are certified by the American Dental Association, having completed either 18 months of training or 1 year of college and having passed an examination. Licensed dental lab technicians were found to be technical employees in Newington Children's Hospital, 217 NLRB No. 134 (1975). As certified dental assistants are similar, we find that they are technical employees. The other dental assistants are not certified. However, they per- form the same work, exercise the same skills, and are in the same pay grade. There is an on-the-job train- ing program with a specified curriculum. On these facts, we find that the uncertified dental assistants are also- technical employees. s See Trumbull Memorial Hospital, 218 NLRB No 122 (1975), medical technicians CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH 595 17. The assistant medical photographer has been trained through an apprenticeship and is eligible for certification. She is qualified in the reproduction of X-ray prints and pathology slides, operates sophisti- cated equipment, and assists in training students. She need not, however, have formal higher level of edu- cation or be licensed. We find that she is not a tech- nical employee. Newington Children's Hospital, supra. 18. The animal caretaker has trained with the American Association for Laboratory Animal serv- ices, completed a 14-week university course, and re- ceived on-the-job training. He is responsible for the care of animals used in hospital research. He assists doctors in their tests.and records the reactions of the animals. The parties agree, and we find, that the ani- mal caretaker is a technical employee. 19. A number of other laboratories or depart- ments employ technical employees whose status is not in- dispute: histology, electromicroscopy, allergy- immunology, endocrinology, genetics, pulmonary, renal microdissection, and orthopedics. The technicians em- ployed in these departments, subject to the general conditions earlier set forth, are included in the unit. 20. Technical employees are also present in the pe- diatric infectious disease, Dr. Albo's research, and Ren- ziehausen trust research laboratories. As these are ap- parently research facilities, we shall apply the above standards for research technicians to these techni- cians and permit-them to vote subject to challenge. 21. The parties are in agreement as to the exclu- sion of EEG technicians, pharmacy technicians, and play therapists. The record establishes that these em- ployees are not technical. Newington Children's Hos- pital, supra; Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, supra. There remain for consideration certain ancillary is- sues. Mary Jo Sargus and Catherine Baca were active in soliciting authorization cards for the Petitioner. The Employer contends that they are supervisors and that, therefore, Petitioner's showing of interest is tainted. As set forth above, employees in question are not supervisors. Even had they been found to be su- pervisors, their positions are not such that the inter- est showing would be tainted,- for employees would not equate their solicitation with that of manage- ment. The Employer also contends that the Petitioner's showing of interest is inadequate because it contains authorizations signed by persons excluded from the unit and the unit contains certain persons sought to be excluded by the Petitioner. The showing of interest is an administrative, not a statutory, mat- ter. We are satisfied that Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest to proceed with an election in a unit of technical employees. We have excluded certified technologists and other employees sought by the Petitioner because they are professionals. In the alternative, Petitioner has asked for a unit of all professional employees. This issue was not fully litigated at the hearing and is therefore not properly before us in this proceeding. In accord with our decision-herein and subject to the findings and rulings made above, we find the fol- lowing unit to be appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All regular full-time and part-time technical employees employed by the Employer at its hos- pital facilities in Pittsburgh, - Pennsylvania, in- cluding those employed in the central laborato- ries managed by the Employer, but excluding all nontechnical employees and professional em- ployees, including medical technologists, confi- dential, office, and hospital clerical employees, service and maintenance employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit- ted from publication.] MEMBER PENELLO, dissenting: For the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, supra, I disagree with my colleagues' finding that a unit of all techni- cal employees in a hospital is appropriate.