Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center

DE)CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI) Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center and Beer, Soft Drinks, Water, Carbonic Gas and Liquor Sales Drivers, Helpers, Inside Workers, Bottlers, Warehousemen, Promotional Representatives, School Bus Drivers and Bus Drivers Local 744, In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 13-RC 14821 May 17, 1979 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRE('TION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) Me1MBtRS JENKINS ANT) MULRPHY On September 29, 1978, the Regional Director for Region 13 issued a Decision and Order in which he found that the unit requested by the Petitioner was inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing and dismissed the petition. Thereafter, the Peti- tioner filed a timely request for review and the Em- ployer filed a statement in opposition to the Petitioner's request. On November 13, 1978. the Board granted the Petitioner's request. 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 with respect to the issues under review, including the Petitioner's brief on review, and hereby makes the following findings: The Employer operates a nonprofit hospital in Chi- cago, Illinois, and employs approximately 4.500 em- ployees throughout 60 departments. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of approximately 10 chauf- feur-drivers' in the Employer's external transporta- tion department. The Employer contends that the chauffeur-drivers do not possess a community of in- terest sufficient to justify separate representation, that it would unduly proliferate the number of bargaining units at its facility, and that. therefore, the chauffeur- drivers may only be represented appropriately as part of the existing service and maintenance unit currently represented by Hospital Employees I abor Program. herein called HELP.2 I The Petitioner in fact requested ai unit of all "bus drivers." Iloe.,*er. the record reveals that he correct appellation is chaufleur-drisrs. Further. the parties agreed at the hearing to exclude fromn the requested unit a mechanlic and a temporary chauffeur-driser and to include t. regular parr-lime chauffeur-drivers. 2 HELP also represents a unit otf 351 husiness office clericals. I urtler. the Employer has recognized other labor organilzations as representatises for separate units of operating engineers, electrlcians. and iremen and oilers. a,. well as for a unit of housemen and maintenance emplosees al the ritker Psychiatric E-acilits a facility located several miles troml the Fnpller's The Employer first established the external trans- portation department in July 1974. Previously, the de- partment's functions were performed by security de- partment employees. In March 1976 the department was again mnade part of the security department but was reestablished as an independent department in March 1977.' The existing service and maintenance unit was established in 1968. I'he external transportation department performs three main functions: operating a shuttle bus service to and from the hospital: performing pickup, deliv- ery, and messenger duties; and operating a chauffeur service for hospital officials. The chauffeur-drivers spend approximately 60 percent of their time away from the hospital grounds and only come in contact with other hospital employees while driving the shut- tle buses, which are also used by patients, visitors, and the public. and when making pickups and deliv- eries. Their remaining time is spent on breaks and waiting ftr assignments. As the Regional irector ftind, their contact with service and maintenance employees while on hospital grounds is minimal. Fur- ther, while a number of chauffeur-drivers are former service and maintenance employees. there is no job interchange. The external transportation departmient has its own budget. and the chaufl'eur-drivers are under the exclu- sive supervision otf the department director. Driver applicants are initially processed through the Eim- plover's human relations department. but the director makes the final hiring decision. Conversely, discharge proceedings are initiated by the department although the procedure is reviewed by the Eimployer's labor relations department. Unlike most of' the service and maintenance em- ployees, the chauffeur-drivers do not wear uniforms and, on the whole, receive higher wages: only one graded and several nongraded workers in the 1.00()- employee service and maintenance unit receive an equal or higher rate of pay. Further, unlike all but approximately 50 service and maintenance employ- ees, the chauffeur-drivers work a Monday-through- Friday schedule. The chaufleur-drivers are not highly skilled and re- ceive minimal training. T'hey also share certain bene- fits with employees in the service and maintenance unit. l'hese include lif'e insurance, pensions. leave of absence procedurte, vacations, holildas, and premliuml and overtime paty. 'logether with other unrepresented employees, the chauttcur-drivers are covered by a nlaiin catllpis Nine Of tIlcse llabor olg.atrllialllS i, . prts o tills proceed- illg Ihc irnls other lllrepreselted roup lf emnploees are clericals .ho ilre ernploled hrlougholl 5 lilfferernt departnlenllls Neilher parl contenlds that ill tllreprescllted elplo-ces should bc loined ini a single tUllt. Ihe paric, stipulalted Ihat lie. chitlllcur-drl\ers perlorm ito securlt? fullLttl)ln 242 NLRB No. 50 322 MlI(IIAtI RFSI tI()SPII I N, ) ME)I('\ ( I NII R grievance procedure similar to that i the contract covering the service and mainteInance unit. lowever the record also reveals that. with minor exceptions.4 the same benefits are enjoyed h all other enploNees. regardless of' their representattive sattus. Based on his tindings that the chlaaufl-ur-drivers lack skills and share benefits uith other employees. and that other departments in the ser ice and malinte- nance unit enjo\ a similar autonom\. the Regional D)irector concluded that the, do not need separate representation. We disagree. The chaluffeur-drivers are separately supervised. hired. and fired. With minor exceptions the\ receive a higher wage and work a different schedule than the service and maintenance employees. Not only do the chauffeur-drivers spend 60() percent of their time a a! from the hospital. but their contact , ith other em- ployees while on the premises is minilal. Mloreover. the chauffeur-drivers neither interchange nor pertorml their duties in concert with other emploees. lheir duties are. at best. only ta ngentiallv related to patient ca re. That other serice and Ililllteal;lce deparl'tilleit have similar altllollX, aIlld thal service alld Illailnte- nance emplo\es ill the -lund-! iand ll tile print shop perfi)rm distinct dties in separate areas does not lead to a different conclusion. Thie Boar Ihas pre'd , uitls noted that a service and m;laintelllancLe lnit in the health care industry is analogeous to a plalilts ide pro- duction and mlaintenance unit in the industrial sector and. as such. includes enlplo ees xu ho perforil dlix cr- sified tasks u, ho nevertheless share a comiUnlilits (of interest ith each other- ." louever. in determinin g the interests of' truckdrivers. to whlich the chaufi'eur- drivers here are certainls anallogous. the Board gixes great weight t tthe extent to w;lich their drix iln dil- ties are integrated with those of' plant emploaces to whether the drivers perform duties inl addition to driving and to the frequenc\ of their conltat u-ith plant emploaees.7 Th'e chauffeutr-drivers constitute a separate departmlent under separate superxision ;and perlorm duties apart from those pert-nled hb other the representedl Ianllitor% ha.,e their in pensiOll pln. .r d [le th1111 re : "orkers at the Prillkcr lililt\ ire not to, cred h Ihe I nlpl.tc's h[hI disoh , poliic ( O irlfl t rt ir rla/ l cd/ri ( r'l l cn r, 224 Ni RB 218. 221) 1i lir7 ) I rthier the Ilet hat he I hc h. tleur-dirxer hie Ihistoricalc.il h 1een c\I lud li l tid it he existliig cr ice .1it Ill;ln tcn.nlltc lnli sel c se ollt I reit ric thclir IlIlil sepalrl t frt Il l lhCer eIllIpi) Cee I .l i Ilr itc! i / Il.l ar, Ir i 219 N R3 1327. II1 5 tH I 1 lhe challulcur-dll hcrs. .a l, l. i .Isse, amrt .' c .lr .11 tlr ell l 11llslltel- nilt littcre th than thlt ps\esed h! tihe illel..ll rcords clcrk,. indl ain. scribe.rs insul.ed in i [ illl ,Aslit the Boalrd tiur td t h c lill tI deiilM emplor.ees See i 11 i-koer BiAcn ( o. I 13t N[ RH It0 I t21 c % ,tt 5/ li.- rtl I,edial (' ient(r,. luprc at ti 11) In ,, hrh t1l t,r- la i Board llt rl's with Ihcn M mhber I a.lillilt dII till1lr t1oun11d hIll i gr-llop ict Cnrgeclt medical echlilcr ins. chlch icllt dei ;aIllih iticc drisers did 1lO pio ',c .1a cimmunlls lf inleresl utictenl It isl i ll 'e pie.r.lc rel t'SClt.iltill1 h e t111- plio ees in the pllllioned-t.or Ullll I 111 thi C,. h..ctcr. ertctlltled iltedi ll functions cls oel integr.ated i lh tlnhoe perlT iltied t irt hplll mid tre- emplo\ es.' Iherefore. the onl, issue is whether this otherwise appropriate unit is rendered inappropriate by the congressional admonition against undue pro- liferation oft'bargaining units in the health care inidus- try. In the peculiar circuimstan ces o this case. we think that it is not. The record revea;ls that af'ter the external transpor- tation departmernt was tfrmied in 1974. HELP. the representative of the service and maintenance unit. unsuccessf'fullv sought during collectix e-bargaining negotiations to include the chauffeulr-drixers in that unit. ater. in 1976, tl.l P filed a unit claritcation petition inl (Iase 1.3 C;(' 85. seeking to add the drivers to its unit, which the Emplo\er opposed and xuhich the Board, on August 6. 1976. dismissed. Itlowever. at no time since the external transportation depart- menit's creation has t11 .I'. .or the {mplol er r tIhat matter, soughlt to includte the chaufie'ur-drivers in the servxice and nlailtenan e ullit hb mieanls of a self-de- termilnationl election. Further. since 11 h.P has not in- tersened in this proceecding. we have no reason to as- sUIlle tha it it wuld ow%, tile an election peti tion. lt(, distiss the petition and f'orce tle chaUt;lfur- lricrs t look to the sei-\ ice and llaintenance unit tor represelntation OUtldli l. e hbelilet. releca te thei to aI perpetlual lack o representt ationll and violate our dlut under Sctionl 9(h) to accord emnploccs the full- est freedom to exercise their rights guLaranteed hb the Act. he hare lct is that no other labhor iorganization presenltl seeks. or. x,, believe. ould seek, to repre- sent tlle clhatffeur-dmricrs oin an\ other hasis. Ihere- tfore. inding the requlIsLted unit appropriate here strikes a proper balance C heteen the conlressional adinloniiontioll agLilisl uliduL prolifcratiton and oluir dIutx utinder Section 9'h). \'e cIanllt conltiallN denll these eniplo,ees the freedom Iio eercise thcir rights. Ac- cordingl!, . e shall direct ain election in the unit sougIll h tile I'etitioner. qllentlI did cl tn fictLnj 1ti i nllV h tilhl e r islpllr ii ctlpl ec\ I hu. Ihe inl- hiliLtlte drier i detmed separtlle rpeCller ntlctl tIheteinl. Liunhk IhCe Chltltl. lr- dirier, ii h1 1i1It.i11 .a1e. re iLeci. tirsl l 1 ranlling. . llld ',ere qll.laliiJed 1 IadlTillnitcr rllil elll .gllt\ nlcilall Ilcllllc il l c ,t I cn oordin.ljloln lih ,tler hopteil ceilploieets I }e\,. ltr e.IIlrplc. itlahed eleelrocardiograph Ill111ti111 rlolirtired hb 1spitr1l.ll persicrllltre sil uh hll Ilcs steCrc ii isvo-s.i rilci iittlllll lll.li. ill. t.lrld 11lirtlclils de, icCls iid 1 titFt Ir.lilled ii1 t'll 1- eCIl firslt-ll p edOC'lLre, i n. ire Aw uinpclsii.ie h tir ti d/c ,lI cit.ii p .mploees, ii l li i hiid irg scrtcs deiplllrlieC drl C d ictlicl les tli is pi Ikup truikl.,ks i ll uns IC- -vo ll eqillpirrTlll I IlC. . lllp i c iopera t e rC lit, e xchilts 1ll\ .1is .ll ecll11iIr i to their rouildskecplnu dttite, ir. 1 ] do Icol shtirc a coimillrllnt of Illtterest ci[h i tlll 11ii C ldrilers h i t ls, i tllerCl re iI11ii gllehilh c rie 1 tr I ll-I i ,r/i ltll, . lc)tc i l Ill I-i I cwe the Board declie to irllll Ctiit s .lir representlittion 1 I grourip Oit m i.il .jiI leClCr idei trks, and tra.ll rih rs ., htll llliitrl.lil l hi eel C i.cl ided truli1 til C\ sillleg icr I l rdll 1lj il .lilrc itit lt BI Irardl iiselcd Ihe sersic .itll 1,n.llll relrclrc C Ltitt rCPiICeI jilII'C I i l .1 liler ilibil r i.u1[ l [IdIiii ti rcprescll a ercr, e lc ; imellI i Cll.lliCi 11i11tic U ll(C l/ilml Ig l h C lrik i il trlnCrlCliCtr 1i ll Hl /i l !iioics icx t 1 ii %ltlcsi[ hii it tt 1111 11htl a l .ltil[[1 crC rtjectitcI Ih BoH rid -i dli toreCl Icuiiidc rc[prCCtrll.illll1 I 1C tithi cidillded l eilll i]cr. 'ees IJ:I I', Iliiurc I seck tht c lili LIl t rl r hrs x i i 111n or ill t ei. l Ici lad, is, It II LicldCe rhil Ihci c rt. IiktI i i Ii, - /ov /i. Is isl 'ihl here 323 I)ECISIONS OF NAFIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Regional Director did not resolve the status of Willie Williams. whom the Employer alleges to be a supervisor, or the unit placement of department clerk Mary Curry. Williams drives a shuttle bus 3 hours each morning and at other times when needed. In addition to his driving duties, Williams is responsible for insuring that the daily services provided by the department begin on time and, during the day, as- signs duties to individual drivers based on workload and driver availability. Williams also interviews, and on at least two occasions has hired, applicants. He issues written reprimands and has attended supervi- sory training sessions. In the director's absence. Wil- liams is in charge of the department. Since Williams hires, disciplines, and responsibly directs employees, we find that he is a supervisor and shall exclude him from the unit. Mary Curry. who performs no driving duties. works in the office of the department director. She records requests for drivers and messengers and oth- erwise performs typing. filing, and general clerical du- ties. Curry also has attended meetings with clericals from other departments but does not attend meetings held tor the chaufleur-drivers. The nature of Curry's duties causes her interests to be closely aligned with those of the Employer's unrepresented clericals rather than with those of the chauffeur-drivers. Therefore, we shall exclude her from the unit. We shall direct an election in the following appro- priate unit: All chauffeur-drivers in the Employer's external transportation department, excluding all clerical employees, technical employees, professional employees. managerial employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. and all other employ ees. [Direction of Election and E.vxcelsior footnote omitted from publication.] M1IlMIIR JI!NKINS, dissenting: For the reasons set forth by the Regional Director in his Decision and Order. I would dismiss the peli- tion. 324