Peter Bent Brigham Hospital

PETER BENT BRIGHAM HOSPITAL Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, a Division of the Affiliated Hospital Centers, Inc. and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 877, AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Case I -RC- 14925 August 31, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On December 28, 1976, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 877, AFL-CIO, hereinaf- ter the Petitioner, filed the petition in the above- entitled case seeking an election at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, a division of the Affiliated Hospital Centers, Inc. (hereinafter the Employer or the Hospital), of all employees in the Employer's engineering department. Subsequently, the Regional Director issued a notice of representation hearing on January 18, 1977. A hearing was held, pursuant to Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, on January 26, 27, and 31 and February 1, 1977, before Hearing Officer Joseph D. Feaster. On March 2, 1977, the Acting Regional Director for Region I transferred the above-entitled case to the Board in Washington, D.C., for decision. Thereafter, both parties filed briefs. On April 7, 1977, the Employer filed a motion to amend the record by adding 89 employees to its requested unit. Petitioner, on April 12, 1977, filed an opposition to the Employer's motion. 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, having duly considered the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing, finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: I. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, a division of the Affiliated Hospital Centers, Inc., is a nonprofit Massachusetts corporation engaged in patient care, teaching, and research, and is a health care institu- tion within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. The Employer annually derives revenue in excess of $250,000, and the parties have stipulated that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, we find it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. We find that International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 877, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 231 NLRB No. 132 3. A question concerning representation exists regarding the representation of certain employees within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) of the Act. 4. The Employer, a 330-bed Harvard Medical School teaching hospital, employs approximately 950 professional and 2,300 nonprofessional employees. The Employer operates both inpatient and outpa- tient facilities, as well as neighborhood health centers in the greater Boston area. The Hospital is divided into seven divisions, each headed by an associate director. The director, the chief administrator, is above the associate directors in the hospital hierarchy; he is answerable only to the board of overseers and its executive committee. Seven doctors, the chiefs of service, form the executive committee of the medical staff, which advises the director. Within the seven divisions are several departments. In the plant services division, headed by Associate Director Stomberg, there are eight departments under the immediate supervision of Assistant Director for Plant Services Beltramini. One of these departments is plant engineering, the unit sought by Petitioner in the case herein. The engineering department consists of 39 employ- ees, 6 of whom are licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (although the Hospital only requires licensing of 3); 3 are journeymen or the equivalent, and 2 are apprentices from a local trade school. Both the classification and level of skill in the department represent a broad mix. For example, there are carpenters, painters, and electricians, as well as plumbers and maintenance mechanics, in the depart- ment; as a group, these employees are both skilled and relatively unskilled; some have recently gradu- ated from high school. Most of the 39 work solely within their own job classification. The nature of the work performed by plant engineering employees is relatively uncomplicated, for the most part requiring handyman skills. Engi- neering employees function in both a preventive and remedial capacity, e.g., changing lightbulbs, fitting and fixing air-conditioners, fixing loose tile or plaster, checking fixtures, doing small-scale painting. They operate in several ways. First, they' usually make routine tours of the Hospital, checking a notebook, called the "Minor Engineering Repair Log," for service requests. Normally such repairs can be performed on the spot, since the men carry around a tool and supply cart in order to handle the customary minor jobs. Second, a man could be sent out to use his specific skill, having been called by another hospital employee, perhaps a nurse. Third, any of the employees could be sent out by any of their superiors on a project usually involving preven- tive maintenance, such as getting a room ready for a patient requiring special environmental conditions. 929 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Insofar as larger and more complex jobs are involved, the Employer hires independent contrac- tors. The share of the plant engineering budget which is allocated to jobs performed by outside contractors appears to be substantial.' The Hospital would often subcontract out work such as building construction renovations, elevator repair work, and major electri- cal, plumbing, or painting jobs; several outside contractors might be working in or outside the Hospital on any given day. Thus, most of the nonroutine maintenance work would be performed by these outside contractors. With respect to utilities, the Hospital purchases all of its needs from the outside. This includes steam, chilled water, oxygen, compressed air, DC electricity (all from the Harvard Power Plant), and AC electricity (from Boston Edison). Although some engineering employees might perform minor repair work on these systems, 2 the Hospital has neither stationary nor boilerroom engineers. Hospital policy regarding wages and overtime, hours and break periods, fringe benefits (e.g., medical insurance, pension benefits, life insurance, leave time, vacations), and personnel policy (e.g., hiring, firing, grievance procedure, employee evalu- ation, orientation) is established on a hospitalwide uniform basis. As to pay, the Employer has a hospitalwide pay schedule ranging from grades I through 23, the highest numerical grade being the best paid. While all of the engineering department employees fall between grades 2 and 10, most are at least at grade 7. In general, service and maintenance employees at the Hospital are classed anywhere from grades I through 1. Engineering department employees work in all areas of the Hospital, wherever they are needed. In order for them to carry out their jobs effectively, in fact, they must deal with other employees to fix particular maintenance problems. Nearly all of their working hours are spent outside the area of the I Several of' the Employer's witnesses offered substantial support for the Employer's contention that a significant share of its plant engineenng budget went for outside contractors. Both John Anderson, the Employer's director for plant maintenance, and William Feuer, the Employer's associate director for personnel services, testified that outside contracting constituted about 50 percent of the work and the budget in the plant engineering department. Petitioner offered no evidence at the hearing to rebut the Employer's contention. 2 The Hospital has two oxygen systems. One is the central system connected to the Harvard Power Plant; the other is an independent in- hospital system operated by the anesthesiology department. The latter may be used as a backup system. It is the central system, confined to the in- hospital links to the power plant, that is maintained by the engineering department. :' After the hearing in the above-entitled case had been closed on February 1. 1977. the Employer filed a motion to amend the record by adding 89 employees to its requested unit of service and maintenance employees, They are: 5 admitting department officers; 22 radiology department employees, most of whom are either junior file clerks or engineering department. Engineering employees also interact with other hospital employees in common areas such as the cafeteria, coffeeshop, and parking lot. Engineering department employees work with other employees, e.g., adjusting beds, windows, air- conditioners, oxygen tubes, and toilets. They have also helped housekeeping employees when the Hospital was flooded by a heavy rain. In addition, engineering employees, along with other employees of the Hospital, sit on hospital committees, such as the suggestion plan committee, the outing committee, and the personnel board. Furthermore, the Hospital has an interdepartmental transfer policy for which all employees are eligible. Over the past 3 years, approximately six employees have transferred in and two out of the engineering department. The Employer contends that the unit sought by Petitioner is inappropriate for several reasons. First, the employees of the engineering department lack true craft status. Second, the engineering employees do not possess a sufficient community of interest separate and apart from other service and mainte- nance employees. Third, there is a high degree of functional integration between engineering depart- ment employees and other service and maintenance employees. Fourth, the legislative history of the 1974 hospital amendments make it clear that Congress is concerned about the possible undue proliferation of bargaining units at hospitals. As an alternative to the unit sought by Petitioner, the Employer proposes a unit of all service and maintenance unit employees at the Hospital. Petitioner has agreed to proceed to an election in a broader service and maintenance unit in the event that the Board finds the engineering unit to be an inappropriate unit; however, Petitioner would still exclude the blood drawers, family health workers, and the animal caretakers. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the engineering department is an inappropriate unit for several reasons. 3 First, the engineering employees in expeditor receptionists; 37 medical record department employees: 12 switchboard operators; 13 pharmacy employees. The Employer claims inadvertence in its failure to include these groups in its proposed unit in the brief and at the hearing; Petitioner opposes the motion to amend on the grounds that the Employer had ample time to submit all pertinent information at the hearing. Based on the entire record, we shall direct an election in an appropriate service and maintenance unit, subject to a hearing on the Employer's motion to amend. This service and maintenance unit shall include the blood drawers, family health workers, and the animal caretakers. With respect to the Employer's motion, we shall remand this proceeding to the Regional Director, and direct him to hold a hearing in order to adduce the facts so that the Board can determine whether the proposed additional 89 employees should be added to the overall service and maintenance unit. Petitioner must notify the Regional Director within 10 days from the issuance of this Decision and Order whether it wishes to proceed to the hearing and a subsequent election, in either the Employer's original or broadened service and maintenance unit, and, if so, Petitioner must submit at that time such additional showing of interest as may be required to support its petition. American Hospital Management Corp. d/h/ba 930 PETER BENT BRIGHAM HOSPITAL question lack true craft status. Although a few employees do hold licenses, the skills required by the job do not demand, for the most part, that these employees attain a high degree of proficiency. The nature of the job is one calling for little trade specialization and training. In addition, the range of skills and skill levels involved are greatly varied. The more difficult and larger jobs are performed by independent contractors, and both parties agree (although not precisely) that such outside work amounts to a substantial percentage of the engineer- ing department's budget. Neither electricity nor heat is generated from within the Hospital; at most, the Hospital maintains a supply of oxygen on hand. Thus, engineering department employees perform essentially routine maintenance work. Furthermore, the engineering department is func- tionally integrated with the entire plant services division, and with the Hospital as a whole. Such functional integration is on the job level, as well as on the social and organizational level. Although the engineering department is separately supervised, it is in all other respects only one department among many in a highly centralized organization, e.g., regarding such matters as personnel policy, wages, hours, fringe benefits, and hospital committees. There is no evidence in the record to support Petitioner's claim that engineering employees earn a significantly higher wage than other service and maintenance employees. Nor has Petitioner shown that the number of transfers into and out of the engineering department is an insignificant ratio compared to the total department work force or to employee turnover in the department. In addition to the above, there is no evidence in the record showing that engineering department employ- ees maintain a community of interest separate and apart from other service and maintenance employ- ees. In practically all respects, engineering employees enjoy the same benefits and must live under the same rules as service and maintenance employees: they work under a uniform wage, hour, and fringe benefit structure, as well as a uniform personnel system. The Maid River Clommunirt Haspirtal 219 NLRB 25 (1975). Robert W. Hunt (,ontpan, Inc. 150 NLRB 986 (1965); Statements of Procedure. Series 8, as amended. Sec. 101 18 Merri. Hospitals of Sacramenio, Inc., 217 NLRB 765. 766(1975). See Riverside Alethodist Hospital. 223 NL RB 1084 (1976), and S. Joseph Hspital. 224 N LR B 270 (1976). In his separate concurring opinion in Sr I incent's Hospital. 223 NLRB 638 (1976), Member Penello clarified his position, as taken in Shriners Hspirtrls for Crippled Children. 217 NLRB 806 (1975), on the appropriate- ness of maintenance units in the health care industry In so clarifying his position, Member Penello stated that he is of the view that a craft maintenance unit mar be appropriate when, viewed in light of all the criteria traditionalls considered in determining the appropriateness of maintenance units gener.ll?. its establishment does not conflict with the congressional mandate against proliferation of bargaining units in the health care fact that their uniforms are of a different color is trivial. Lastly, Congress has made it clear that it wishes the Board to give consideration to the prevention of the undue proliferation of bargaining units in the health care industry.4 The congressional intent militating against the proliferation of bargaining units provides additional support for our conclusion.5 In sum, we conclude that the only appropriate unit herein would be composed of service and mainte- nance employees. With respect to skills, conditions of employment, and interdepartmental integration, engineering department employees share a communi- ty of interest with other service and maintenance employees. Our only remaining question, then. is the size of the service and maintenance unit. As noted above, the Employer has filed a motion to amend the record by adding 89 employees to this service and maintenance unit, and we are remanding this proceeding to the Regional Director. Therefore, we shall order the Regional Director to hold a hearing on the Employer's motion and to issue a report on his factual findings. 6 Accordingly, we shall order that (I) the Regional Director dismiss the instant petition unless the Petitioner makes a timely showing of interest, and (2), if Petitioner does so, the Regional Director shall hold a hearing to make factual findings, and thereafter shall issue a report. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the hearing in this proceeding be, and it hereby is, reopened for the limited purpose of adducing evidence in support of the Employer's motion to amend the record, and to permit both parties the opportunity to present any evidence or contentions relevant to the unit question arising from the Employer's motion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for Region I for the purpose of conducting such further hearing and issuing a report thereon, and that the Regional Director be, and he hereby is, autho- rized to issue notice thereof to all parties. industry. This standard, which is a more rigid one than is applied in other industries. can be met, in Member Penello's view. when the unit sought. unlike the situation in Shriners, is composed of licensed craftsmen engaged in traditional craftwork. which is performed in a separate and distinct location apart from other employees in the health care facility. Normall',. such employees do not perform other services throughout the health care facility. as was the case in Shriners, and there is, at most, minimal transfer or interchange to and from the craft unit. In the instant case. Member Penello agrees with his colleagues that the unit sought all employees in the Employer's engineering department is inappropriate since it does not satisfy the standard set forth by him for finding a craft maintenance unit to be appropriate. e Member Jenkins would not hold a hearing on those employees prior to the election, but would allow them to vote subject to challenge in an election to be held promptly. 931