Sinai Hospital Of Detroit, Inc.

SINAI HOSPITAL OF DETROIT Sinai Hospital of Detroit, Inc.' and Local 547, Inter- national Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 7-RC-13476 October 15, 1976 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Michael D. Pearson of the National Labor Relations Board. On May 6, 1976, the Regional Director for Region 7 is- sued a Decision and Order dismissing the petition. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a re- quest for review of the Regional Director's Decision contending, inter alia, that the Regional Director was clearly erroneous in finding that a separate mainte- nance unit was inappropriate. The Employer filed a brief in opposition to the request for review. On July 23, 1976, the National Labor Relations Board, by telegraphic order, granted the request for review. 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 considered the entire record in this case,' including the briefs of the parties, with respect to the issue under review, and makes the following findings: The Employer is a nonprofit Michigan corporation engaged in the business of operating a general hospi- tal offering medical, surgical, and in- and out-patient services. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the Employer's 2,500 employees. The Petitioner seeks to represent a bargaining unit limited to 50 employees in I1 different job classifica- tions in the engineering and maintenance depart- ment. Petitioner contends that the petitioned-for em- ployees constitute a distinct group based on area practice and similarity of experience, skill, wages, and working conditions, thus justifying separate rep- resentation. i The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing. 2 The Employer's request for oral argument is denied, as the record and briefs adequately present the positions of the parties 425 The Employer, on the other hand, contends that the unit sought is inappropriate and that the only appropriate unit is one consisting of-a hospitalwide service and maintenance unit. This unit would con- tain 700 employees in job classifications which were stipulated to be customarily part of such a unit in the hospital industry. The Employer argues that such a finding is required because all of the employees share the same or similar wages, benefits, and working con- ditions, possess similar skills, and are highly integrat- ed both functionally and operationally. The Regional Director found that the unit sought did not have such a separate community of interest from the larger service and maintenance group as to warrant separate representation and, accordingly, found the unit inappropriate and dismissed the peti- tion. We disagree. In determining the appropriateness of a separate maintenance department unit in health care institu- tions, the Board applies its traditional unit criteria, i.e., mutuality of interest in wages, benefits, and working conditions; commonality of skills and super- vision; frequency of contact with other employees; interchange and functional integration; and area practice. It takes into account, at the same time, the congressional admonition against proliferation of bargaining units in the health care industry.' In this case, for the reasons set forth below, we find that the application of these standards to the evidence herein warrants the establishment of a separate bargaining unit limited to the Employer's engineering and main- tenance department. Employer's hospital is divided into 35 departments which are administered by four associate administra- tors. Day-to-day supervision of the engineering and maintenance department is the responsibility of the plant manager, assistant plant manager, and mainte- nance operations supervisor, the first-mentioned hav- ing more authority than the second and the second more than the third. As indicated above, the requested department is composed of 50 employees in 11 separate job de- scriptions. There are 2 maintenance helpers who are involved in routine repair tasks requiring physical strength; 5 maintenance assistants I and II who en- gage in progressively more difficult electrical and building repairs and equipment maintenance; 19 general maintenance technicians I and II, employees who utilize increasing degrees of skill in making 3 Jewish Hospital Association of Cincinnati d/b/a Jewish Hospital of Cincin- nati, 223 NLRB 614 (1976). (Chairman Murphy and Member Fanning dis- senting as to the result reached in that case denying the separate mainte- nance unit. Member Penello concurring in part and dissenting in part, Members Jenkins and Walther dismissing the petition for a separate mainte- nance unit though finding that such a unit is not necessarily precluded in all circumstances in the health care industry) 226 NLRB No. 61 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD structrual deliberations according to blueprints; 10 general maintenance technicians III who with a min- imum of supervision determine the cause of a mal- function in the various hospital systems and repair it using complex equipment; 2 general maintenance technicians III, licensed/electricians who with a min- imum of supervision maintain the electrical system and install electrical appliances; 3 operating engi- neers, second-class, whose responsibilities entail the smooth operation of the steam boiler; and 2 general maintenance technicians II, leaders, 4 general main- tenance technicians III, leaders, and a senior operat- ing engineer, second class, who, in addition to work- ing in their respective fields, schedule the activities of their coworkers and spot check the performance of their jobs. The record establishes that the employees in the maintenance department are generally more highly skilled than those in the larger service group. Six or seven of the employees sought, the operating engi- neers, licensed electricians, and general maintenance technicians III, are required to be and are licensed by the city of Detroit. Further, while journeyman status within a trade is not a prerequisite for hire, some of the maintenance men do possess such status. It was admitted by Employer's personnel director that these employees do, for the most part, have more experi- ence than those in the service department, though major repair work is contracted out. The wage rates received by the maintenance per- sonnel reflect their specialized skill and experience in that they are generally in the higher salary levels; most service employees are in the lower wage levels. The maintenance department also has greater range of progression within each level than other depart- ments and also has a zero turnover rate as opposed to 20-30 percent in the rest of the hospital. There is a separate maintenance operations supervisor. Em- ployees in the maintenance department wear uni- forms of a distinctive color. With the exception of the boilerroom personnel, the maintenance workers are employed throughout the hospital. They do not, however, work jointly with service, and other hospital employees. The contact that they do have with them is limited to checking with the hospital personnel in an area prior to com- mencing their repair activities, which is not sufficient contact to characterize their positions as being func- tionally or operationally integrated with those of other employees in the hospital. Further, what area practice exists appears to sup- port a finding that a separate maintenance unit is appropriate. It was stipulated that in the Southeast Michigan area there are approximately 200 hospitals, only 30 of which engage in collective bargaining for some type of unit. Petitioner has contracts with 15 of these hospitals, 12 of which have engineering and maintenance units, 1 of which includes only engi- neers because the maintenance work is contracted out and 2 of which include engineering and mainte- nance employees in one unit and general hospital employees in another. All of the Employer's employees, including the pe- titioned-for maintenance employees, share a number of basic working conditions and benefits including, inter alia, insurance coverage, access to the employee cafeteria, free parking, vacations, grievance proce- dure, and orientation program. There is also a cen- tralized personnel policy which is administered by the personnel department and applies to all employ- ees. In our view, the requested maintenance unit is suf- ficiently skilled, separate, and distinct to warrant its establishment as a separate bargaining unit. We note, particularly, the maintenance employees' lack of functional and operational integration with other hospital employees; their generally higher skills and experience; their supervision by a separate main- tenance operations supervisor; and their generally higher wage rates than those of service employees. We are persuaded, based on the above facts and the record as a whole, that the petitioned-for engineering and maintenance department possesses a sufficient community of interest to justify its separate represen- tation.4 Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All engineering and maintenance department employees employed by the Employer excluding office clerical employees, guards, supervisors and all other employees employed by the Em- ployer. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit- ted from publication.] ° St Francis Hospital-Medical Center, 223 NLRB 1451 (1976), where a separate maintenance unit was also found to be appropriate