Hebrew Rehabiltation Ceneter

HEBREW REHABILITATION CENTER Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for the Aged and Local 877, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-14785 June 17, 1977 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION 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 hearing was held before Hearing Officers Joseph Griffin, Robert D. McGrath, and Joseph C. Barry of the National Labor Relations Board. Thereafter, the Regional Director for Region I transferred the case to the Board for decision. 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 Officers' 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: 1. Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for the Aged (hereinafter called the Employer or the Center) is a health care institution operating as a center for the care of aged people. According to the stipulation of the parties, the Employer has a gross annual volume in excess of $250,000 a year and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. According- ly, we find it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The parties have stipulated and we find that Local 877, International Union of Operating Engi- neers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called Petitioner), is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. A question concerning representation exists regarding the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer, a 725-bed facility consisting of approximately 25 departments, performs all of the functions that go with providing a home for over 700 aged residents. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the Employer's employees. Petitioner seeks to represent a bargaining unit limited to approximately 23 maintenance employees in approximately 12 different job classifications in I The Jewish Hospital Association of Cincinnati d/b/a Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati, 223 NLRB 614 (1976). 230 NLRB No. 35 the maintenance department. Petitioner contends that the employees in the unit sought constitute a readily identifiable group based on skills, wages, etc., thereby warranting separate representation. The Employer contends that the maintenance department employees in the unit sought do not possess a community of interest sufficiently separate and distinct from the service employees and that therefore the only appropriate unit is an overall service and maintenance unit. It contends that such an overall unit is necessary because the Center attempts to avoid the idea of institutionalization in providing its residents a final home which requires a cohesive homogeneous work force with greater flexibility and mobility than may be present in a general acute hospital. In unit determinations, the Board has traditionally looked to such factors as mutuality of interests in wages and hours; commonality of supervision; skills and functions; frequency of contact with other employees; lack of interchange and functional integration; and area practice and patterns of bargaining.' The congressional admonition against proliferation of bargaining units in the health care industry does not preclude the appropriateness of a maintenance unit.2 Here, for the reasons set forth below, we find that the application of these tradition- al standards indicates that the maintenance employ- ees possess a sufficiently separate community of interest to justify their own unit. The maintenance department (also called the engineering and maintenance department) is headed by a departmental director who is accountable for the separate budget of the maintenance department. Directly responsible to this director are supervisors for the firemen, the maintenance men, and the elevator operators. The supervisors, who possess considerable authority, not only hire but determine starting pay. According to Respondent's records, the mainte- nance department consists of approximately 4 firemen, 5 maintenance mechanics C-A, 6 mainte- nance mechanics C-B, I electrician C-A, one electrician C-B, I electrical safety specialist, I head painter, I painter, I carpenter, I plumber, I plumb- er's helper, 10 elevator operators, and a lead mechanic classification which does not appear to be filled. The record establishes that the employees in the maintenance department, with the clear exception of 2 Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati, supra, St. Francis Hospital-Medical Center, 223 NLRB 1451 (1976). 255 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the elevator operators, are more highly skilled than those in the larger service group. 3 According to the Employer's job descriptions, the firemen, electri- cians, and plumber must all hold licenses. Although not required, licenses are also held by one of the mechanics; four or five employees who have pipefit- ter licenses; a head painter who has a rigger license, and two maintenance mechanics who have fireman licenses. Even in seeking to hire weekend mainte- nance mechanics, the Employer requires experience with basic carpentry, electrical, and plumbing skills and emphasizes in its advertisements that the maintenance mechanic position is "not a housekeep- ing position." Consistent with the Employer's high standards for entry into the maintenance department (other than for elevator operators), there has been insignificant transfer between employees in the unit sought and those outside the unit. The employees in the unit sought are paid wages commensurate with their higher skills and, accord- ingly, are concentrated in the upper pay grades unlike the service employees who the Employer contends must be included in the unit.4 They are headquartered in a separate section of the building and wear distinct uniforms. Although, with the exception of the four firemen, they work throughout the Center, they do not work jointly with service and other Center employees. Instead, their contact, which is generally limited to ascertaining what maintenance task is required, is not sufficient to characterize their positions as being functionally or operationally integrated with those of other employees in the Center.5 The maintenance employees are supervised 3 There is no evidence concerning employees in the housekeeping department since all housekeeping functions are performed by employees employed by an independent contractor. 4 The elevator operators, who are not alleged to possess superior skills, are among the lowest paid employees of the Employer. I Sinai Hospital of Delroil, Inc., 226 NLRB 425 (1976). only by maintenance department supervisors, who do not supervise anyone outside their department. In our view, the requested employees constitute an appropriate maintenance unit.6 In finding the unit sought appropriate, we rely particularly on the maintenance employees' lack of functional and operational integration with other employees; their generally higher skills and experience and corres- pondingly higher wage rates; and their supervision by a separate supervisory hierarchy.7 Although the elevator operators are also adminis- tratively classified in the maintenance department, it is clear that the elevator operators do not do maintenance work, do not possess maintenance skills, do not receive similar wages, and do not experience substantial contact or interchange with other maintenance employees. Therefore, we will not include the elevator operators in the maintenance unit. In conclusion, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: 8 All maintenance department employees em- ployed by the Employer, excluding elevator operators, office clerical employees, guards, su- pervisors, and all other employees employed by the Employer. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] 6 St. Francis Hospital. supra. ' We note that the Employer subcontracts the entire housekeeping operation to an independent contractor. 8 It appears that there is a secretary in the maintenance department whose unit placement is not clearly provided for. Accordingly, we direct that the secretary be permitted to vote by challenged ballot. 256