Beth Israel Medical Center

BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER Beth Israel Medical Center, Employer-Petitioner,' and District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, RWDSU, AFL-CIO. Case 2-UC-99 April 27, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNIT BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND WALTHER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert A. Reisinger. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director for Region 2 issued an order transferring this proceeding to the Board. Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Employer and the Union. 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 has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Employer is a member of the League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of New York, and operates a nonprofit hospital in New York City. The Employer was one of the founding members of the League and has bargained with the Union since 1968. At the time of the hearing in this proceeding, the parties had a collective-bargaining agreement effective July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1976, encompassing a unit of about 2,000 employees. The unit is described in the contract as including "all employ- ees" but excluding "supervisory, confidential, execu- tive and managerial employees." 2 i Hereinafter called Employer. 2 The recognition clause of the agreement provides: The Hospital recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of all of the employees in the bargaining unit(s) set forth in a stipulation ... between the Union and each Hospital to be annexed hereto. Although the record contains no evidence that the above-mentioned 229 NLRB No. 32 The parties agree that the only issue in this proceeding is the unit placement of six housekeeping supervisors in the housekeeping department; six practical dietitians, two dietary aides, and one main kitchen supervisor in food service; one control supervisor, one dispensing supervisor, and one supervising pharmacist in the pharmacy; one chief laboratory technician in pathology; two lead X-ray technicians in radiology; two social work supervisors II, three social work supervisors I, and two senior social workers in the social service department; one supervisor of medical records in medical records; and two supervising psychologist-Ph.D.'s in the psychiatry department. The Employer contends that all but one of the persons employed in the above-mentioned job classifications are supervisors under the Act, and that the remaining individual is managerial, and that, thus, all of them must be excluded from the unit. The Union contends all are employees and thus appropri- ately included in the contract unit. We note some general principles at the outset. In determining supervisory status, the Board is not guided by an individual's job title or classification but by actual duties, and in determining such duties the Board takes into account, inter alia, the type of work done and the responsibility exercised in the performance of the job. Similarly, the Board's determination is based on the existence of authority rather than on assertions that supervisory authority has been conferred on a particular person.3 Also, routine direction of the type customarily exercised by experienced employees over those less skilled does not confer supervisory status within the meaning of the Act. 4 Further, responsibility for making work assignments in a routine fashion does not make one a supervisor, nor does the assumption of some supervi- sory authority for a temporary period create supervi- sory status.5 With these principles in mind, we find on the basis of the entire record that all those contested employ- ees in pharmacy, medical records, and psychiatry are supervisors under the Act, but that the balance of the individuals in dispute are employees within the Act's definition. 6 stipulation was ever executed by the Employer and the Union, the parties stipulated that the disputed classifications are covered by their contract. 3 West Penn Power Co. v. N.LR.B., 337 F.2d 993, 996 (C.A. 3, 1964). 4 Southeastern Cast Stone, Incorporated 185 NLRB 688, 691-692 (1970), and cases cited therein. 5 Mid-State Fruit, Inc., 186 NLRB 51 (1970). 6 We also find that one of the contested social work supervisors 11 in the social service department is not a managerial employee within the meaning of the Act. 295 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Housekeeping The employees in this department are assigned primarily to clean and wax floors and remove trash in various areas of the hospital. The Employer seeks to clarify the unit by excluding Day Crew House- keeping Supervisors, Rosenberg, Pharand, Grant, Johns, and Jordan, and Night Crew Housekeeping Supervisor Breedy. The day-shift supervisors and their crews of 7 to 30 employees are assigned to work from 7:30 a.m. until 4 p.m., on rotating shifts, through the entire week. The night crew of approxi- mately 48 employees work from 11:30 p.m. until 7:30 a.m., Sunday through Thursday. An assistant direc- tor of the hospital, Zipkin, is in charge of the department. Harry Sanford, the director of house- keeping services, is under Zipkin. The manager of operations, Burgess, and the housekeeping coordina- tor, Mrs. Purcell, are under Sanford. Zipkin, Burgess, and Purcell are on duty during the hours between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Supervisors Grant and Rosenberg report to Burgess. Pharand, Johns, and Jordan report to Purcell. Breedy reports to Purcell and Burgess. Housekeeping employees are permanently assigned to a crew by Burgess, Purcell, and Sanford. Some- time such assignments are made or are changed after consultation with the supervisors in order to assem- ble a crew "balanced properly by quality." Work schedules are also made up in advance by Burgess and Purcell so that all employees know their regular assignments. The housekeeping supervisors' primary function is to see that employees on their crews have the proper supplies and equipment with which to work; that the work within a particular area gets done; and that the area is cleaned properly. The supervisors check to see that all employees report for work and that all areas are covered. There is no evidence that they give other than routine directions to the employees on their crews. The supervisors have no authority to change the permanent assignments of employees that are listed on each schedule. They have no authority to schedule overtime and, before reassigning an em- ployee from one area to another, in the event that some employees do not report for work, the supervisors must check with Burgess or Purcell. We find upon the basis of the entire record that the housekeeping supervisors are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The record does not support a finding that they responsibly direct and/or use independent judgment in performing their duties. In sum, upon the basis of the entire record, it appears 7 Armour and Company, d/b/a Memphis Cotton Oil Mill, 115 NLRB 515, 517. fn.2 (1956): Hilton Hotels Corporation d/b/a Statler Hilton Hotel, 191 NLRB 283. 287 (1971): Mid-State Fruit, Inc., supra at 52. that Burgess and Purcell have the initial responsibili- ty to make assignments and to direct the employees in their work. As noted, supra, Burgess and Purcell make up the schedules which are given to the supervisors. Burgess and Purcell maintain direct contact with housekeeping wherever they are work- ing during the day, checking on the employees to make certain that the work is being done. It is clear, on the basis of the entire record, that the employees who are assigned to the various day crews know what their job functions are during their tour of duty and that any assignment or direction by any of the housekeeping supervisors is merely of a routine and not an independent nature. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit.7 As noted, supra, Breedy and his crew of approxi- mately 48 employees work exclusively on the night shift. Breedy is the only housekeeping supervisor on duty during the hours from 11 p.m. until 7:30 a.m. and no higher level official is then on duty. Breedy is responsible only for the crews who clean the nonpatient areas in the hospital. Even though Breedy is the only housekeeping supervisor on duty at night, the record lacks evidence showing that Breedy actually directs in a responsible manner the work of the employees who are on the night crew. Further- more, there is nothing in the record to show that the nature of the cleaning work performed by the night crew is any different from that performed by the housekeeping employees on the day shift, which is strictly routine work. Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit. Food Service The primary function of the food service employ- ees is to provide food for patients. Ronald Fread, the director of food service, heads the department. He reports to an assistant director of the hospital, Reilly. The associate director of the department, Lawrence Strumpf, is directly responsible for its operation. The alleged supervisors, Reece, Clark, Caton, Thomas, Stoessel, Stuart, Massenberg, Odom, and Robinson, work in sanitation and delivery or in the patient tray assembly areas. They either work under Edward Cohen, the head of the production area, or under Gregory Gardner, the manager of patient tray assembly. Gardner is assisted by Mrs. Lewis, the assistant manager. The workweek schedule and the day-off schedule are set up by Strumpf. Practical Dietitians Reece, Clark, and Caton work with employees classified as dietary workers, dietary clerks, and pot washers. The three are responsible for coordinating the efforts of these employees in 296 BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER washing pots, pans, dishes, and other utensils in the kitchen, as well as removing garbage. Clark also checks the schedule to make sure that all employees are on the job and that all stations are cleaned. Reece also sees that the cold food is ready and that trays are ready for the line. The record does not show what other duties Caton performs, but it does show that sometimes she speaks to other employees about mistakes that they might make and shows them the correct way of doing their job. On one occasion, Caton called Cohen's attention to the fact that one employee left his work station three times during one workshift. Pursuant to Cohen's instruction, Caton submitted a suspension notice, which Cohen rewrote and returned to Caton for her signature.8 In the patient tray assembly area, Mrs. Lewis is responsible for the operation of the tray line and she is the person to whom Main Kitchen Supervisor Massenberg and Practical Dietitians Thomas and Stuart report. The other practical dietitian, Stoessel, reports to Gardner.9 The function of the employees in the tray assembly area is to put food on the trays as ordered from the menu by each individual patient. The alleged supervisors see that all employees are on duty and, when the trays come down the line, they check the menu with the items on the tray to see that all the items which the patient has ordered are on the tray. If an item is missing, they call for the particular station to provide the item. They also see that the area is cleaned by the sanitation man who is assigned there; that the necessary equipment for the following meal is present; and that everyone is back to their stations after their breaktime. The record shows that the work in the food service department is basically routine; that the majority of jobs are interrelated and can be performed by most employees; 10 and that none of the jobs requires any special instructions or special skills that take more than several hours for anyone to learn. As in the case of the housekeeping employees, the only supervisory issue truly present is whether the alleged supervisors responsibly direct other employ- ees in a manner which requires the use of indepen- dent judgment. Upon the basis of the entire record, we find that they do not possess such authority and that they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act.' s The record shows that employees are "supposed to be warned three times" and then they are written up if a fourth warning is necessary. In this respect, on occasion some of the alleged supervisors have spoken to employees about neglecting their duties, but when any such neglect such as excessive tardiness or absence from work areas became serious the alleged supervisors would issue written warnings to employees which were prepared by other persons in higher levels of authority. 9 At the hearing, the Employer amended the petition to also exclude, as alleged supervisors, dietary aides Joan Robinson and Ruby Odom because they assumed the duties of practical dietitians on the tray line during emergencies or at vacation time. Pharmacy The Employer seeks to clarify the unit by excluding Pharmacists James, Roth, and Thompson. All three have essentially the same authority. The director of pharmacy service, Eugene Mills, has responsibility for the direction of pharmacy service for all the pharmacies in the hospital. Mrs. Schleider, the assistant director of pharmacy service, is in charge of making up the work schedule. Pharmacist James works with one compounding pharmacist, five helpers,'2 three porter-messengers, and some volunteers. These employees' duties in- clude the prepackaging and prelabeling of medica- tions, and the compounding of prescriptions for patients under department "policy and procedure." James is responsible for assigning the employees' specific job duties and scheduling. In the event an employee is out sick, James is responsible for making changes among personnel who are available to him to see that all work is performed. James also is responsible for making sure that the individuals who are available to work do so, in accordance with department schedules. If employees fail to perform according to their schedules, it is James' responsibili- ty to find out if there is a problem in terms of the employees not complying with what has been established.l3 If James is unable to handle the problem, he brings it to Mills' attention and the latter makes a recommendation for the appropriate course of action. James also has recommended persons for jobs, but the record does not show whether any persons he has recommended have been hired. Roth works with 13 pharmacists, 4 interns, a clerk typist, and a porter-messenger. He is involved in the distribution of prescriptions and medication to patients. James and Roth both mark applicable comments listed on employee evaluation forms pertaining to the quality and quantity of a probation- ary employee's work performance. In 1975, Roth discussed with Mills the performance of a probation- ary employee whose work he had evaluated, and that employee was retained by the Employer. In 1974, Mills sent a memo to the pharmacy staff reminding them that hours of work were based upon the needs of the department and that the hours "will be adhered to, unless a supervisor is notified and 10 Whenever an employee is absent from his or her assigned station, as prescheduled by management, each of the alleged supervisors has at times made arrangements for another employee to fill the vacancy. They have no authority to schedule overtime. ii Hilton Hotels Corporation d/b/a Statler Hilton Hotel, supra. 12 Helpers replenish floor stocks, make deliveries, count tablets and pills, and prepare labels. 13 Such as a report from a nurse that the "floor stock was not dealt on time." 297 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD approves a scheduled alteration." Pursuant thereto, James and Roth have authorized persons to make up time when they have been late. The pharmacy staff was also notified in 1974 that James would schedule and supervise various work activities in the pharma- cy and any personnel assigned to those functions. In 1975, Mills notified the staff that James and Roth "will be responsible for making weekly assignment schedules on a routine basis." However, the record shows that James and Roth were to meet on a weekly basis to decide the personnel needs for the following week and then feed that information back to Schleider, who herself made up the work schedule. Thompson works with five pharmacists and one helper in the Harlem facility. He is responsible for the day-to-day operation there and has the same responsibilities as Roth and James. He has not filled out any performance evaluation forms, however. The record does indicate that Thompson filled out forms on two occasions indicating that he had warned a utility aide for an unexplained absence and had warned a pharmacist for violating the holiday medication schedule. As the record shows that James, Roth, and Thompson responsibly direct the employees under them and approve variations in employee work schedules, inter alia, we conclude that they are supervisors under the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit. Pathology The Employer seeks to exclude from the unit the chief laboratory technician at Morris J. Bernstein Institute (MJBI), William Chlebowski. The record shows that the department is under the overall direction of a Dr. Stenger. Herbert Lerner is the administrator of the department, and is responsible for all administrative and technical functions, per- sonnel, and discipline. Lerner "coordinates" with the associate director, Dr. Tiersten, and another uniden- tified doctor. Chlebowski reports to Mr. Richmond on administrative matters and to Dr. Nina Wolfe on technical matters. Chlebowski is the most senior and most experi- enced technician in his lab. He spends about 75 percent of his time taking blood samples from patients on the floors and analyzing the samples in the lab. He also makes sure that supplies are on hand and he distributes the workload to the four other " Other unit classifications in the department include aides, orderlies, and receptionists. i~ The Employer asserts that Benson and Starr have the authority to recommend hiring. Benson testified that she does not participate in hiring. Starr was not questioned about his part in hiring, but he did testify that many times he did not know that people were hired until the day they started to work. Weathers apparently consults with Benson and Starr about the work of students, but the record is inconclusive as to whether or not any technicians in the lab. Each of the four technicians is chiefly responsible for a particular procedure in the laboratory. Thus, when a certain test is necessary, Chlebowski routinely assigns that work to the technician chiefly responsible for that test or proce- dure. If there is an overload in a particular area or if a technician is on vacation, Chlebowski has the option of giving the work to any technician as they are all cross-trained. Chlebowski is also responsible for quality control and the maintenance of equip- ment, and he fills out the timesheets for the employees. From the foregoing, we conclude Chlebowski is an "employee" under the Act. The great bulk of his time is spent in performing work quite similar to that of other technicians in his lab. His assignment of work is simply in accord with the particular expertise needed in the particular procedure to be performed. Each technician has a special skill and thus there is no independent judgment in this assignment of work. The balance of Chlebowski's duties are basically administrative in nature and, accordingly, we con- clude that he is not a supervisor. Radiology The two X-ray technologists whom the Employer wishes to exclude from the unit, Benson, who is located in MJBI, and Starr, who is located at the main hospital, work under the direction of Marina Weathers, the chief technologist in the department.s4 Weathers reports to the administrative coordinator and to the chairman of radiology. Weathers hires,' 5 fires, and disciplines all employ- ees in the department. She makes up the monthly schedule and assigns the technologists and students to work in specific X-ray rooms.'6 Weathers some- times makes changes in the assignments, depending on the daily needs of the department and who is available. Benson is a salaried employee but otherwise she enjoys the same benefits and conditions of employ- ment as other employees. She is the chief X-ray technologist in the MJBI radiology department and works with one X-ray technologist, one student, and a file clerk. She spends most of her time taking X- rays. Benson has no authority to grant time off. She has issued disciplinary warnings to two employees when she was told to do so by higher authority. If Benson needs assistance, or a technologist calls in input they might have in this respect is determinative of whether the student is hired. The record does show that when it comes to the point of hiring students no consultation with either Benson or Starr is involved because Weathers has had the opportunity to observe the student over a long period of time. '6 Some X-ray rooms are used for chest X-ray and other rooms are used for general diagnostic X-ray. Some technologists prefer permanent room assignments and others prefer rotating to different rooms. 298 BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER sick, or if a machine breaks down, she calls Weathers and advises the latter of the nature of the problems. Benson does have the responsibility to see that employees are at work and that lunch and coffee- breaks are taken on time. Starr is hourly paid and enjoys the same benefits and working conditions as the other employees in the department at the main hospital. He works with 14 technologists, I aide, 3 orderlies, and 2 receptionists. He does not make work assignments, but he is basically responsible for the flow of the work, i.e., for getting the patients X-rayed and getting them back to their rooms. He follows the schedule which lists the names of patients and the examinations that have to be done each day. He checks the quality of the X- rays and, in the event the X-ray is not of sufficient quality, he tells the technologists to take another X- ray. He also schedules lunch breaks to accommodate the technologist and the work schedule. He does not evaluate employees with whom he works. He has talked to them about coming in late when told to do so by Weathers. We find that Benson and Starr give only routine directions to employees and that they do not exercise independent judgment or make effective recommen- dations about the performance of employees. Ac- cordingly, we find that they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act and we shall include them in the unit. 7 Social Service The employees in this department are engaged in treating the psychosocial problems of patients by social work treatment; counseling; therapy with individuals, groups, and families; and collaborative work with physicians and nurses. Ruth Seltzer, the director of social work, is in charge of the department. The individuals whom the Employer seeks to exclude from the unit are engaged primarily in leading teams of social workers. Groeschel has a master of social work degree (MSW) and a master's degree in public administra- tion. She handles and reviews patient cases, gathers material for inspection teams, and assists Seltzer in updating manuals, policies, and procedures. She coordinates services between the social work depart- ment and other departments. She does discuss the job performance of social workers with Seltzer, but she does not make specific recommendations or any course of action. We find, contrary to the Employer's assertion, that Groeschel is not a managerial employ- "? Bay Medical Center, Inc., 218 NLRB 620 (1975); The Grocers Supply Company, Inc., 160 NLRB 485, 490 (1966). is BellAerospace, A Division of Textron, Inc., 219 NLRB 384 (1975). "9 Amorose reports to the head of the adolescent psychiatnc unit, Dr. ee because there is no evidence that she formulates or effectuates management policies.' 8 Watkins has an MSW degree and takes case referrals for teenage service patients. On a typical day, she attends meetings with psychiatrists and social workers, and sees patients. She has never disciplined anyone and does not have the authority to hire or fire. She gives information, in terms of the social work department's policies, to Kathleen Amorose, a social worker assigned to another unit.19 Watkins annually evaluates Amorose by merely indicating whether or not she follows department policies, such as keeping statistics for case records. Amorose "covers" for Watkins while the latter is on vacation but, while Amorose is on vacation, Watkins apparently covers for Amorose in emergencies only. Otherwise Dr. Been handles Amorose's cases. We find Watkins possesses no supervisory indicia and we shall include her in the unit. Nye, a senior social worker in surgery, has a MSW degree. He gives professional guidance to members of his team on particular problems. He does not hire or fire employees, but he did interview one prospec- tive social worker.20 He does not handle grievances nor does he recommend discipline, but he may bring to the attention of his team the fact that written work is not up to date and he makes sure that procedures are followed in closing out cases. He does not make case assignments and he has nothing to do with directing the other team members as to their manner of rendering service in a specific case. He does sometimes transfer a case to himself or to another team member in the event that an employee's level of training and skill is not adequate to deal with the case. Such transfers are based on his best profession- al judgment of the needs of the patient and the capacities of the employees rendering the services. We find on the basis of the entire record that Nye does not exercise supervisory authority in the interest of the Employer. The authority which he possesses to transfer cases after original assignment is merely incidental to the professional treatment of patients and does not, without more, constitute an exercise of supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we find that Nye is not a supervisor and we shall include him in the unit. Since the record shows that Sarah Cortes, a supervisor I, has job duties similar to Nye, we find that she is not a "supervisor" and we shall include her in the unit. Miller, a social work supervisor I, has an MSW degree. She spends her day making rounds in comprehensive health service, emergency service, Hal Been. The latter also evaluates Arnorose on her professional capabili- ties. o0 The prospective employee was also interviewed by two other people and by Seltzer before being hired. 299 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and adult speciality clinics. She confers briefly with doctors and nurses on referrals and consults with social workers who may be having problems with their cases. She also discusses the type of treatment being given in particular cases and goals and objectives, assesses the patients' problems, and discusses possible alternatives to achieve success. She does not hire or fire or discipline other employees. She does assign some cases but the greater majority of cases come about as a result of "walk-ins" or are emergency cases which are assigned by the depart- ment's receptionist. We find that Miller is not a supervisor and we shall include her in the unit. Selterman has an MSW degree and is classified as a social work supervisor I in OB/GYN. She spends her day handling cases, meeting with other social workers, discussing problems and policies and procedures. The record shows that she lacks any of the indicia of supervisory authority. Accordingly, we find that she is not a supervisor and we shall include her in the unit. Perry has an MSW degree and is assigned as a social work supervisor II in pediatrics. She handles cases, consults with other social workers in her area about problems, and answers any questions they might have about the kind of service they are delivering, or the quality of the service. She also serves as a coordinator for the teams from the medical, administrative, nursing, nutrition, and psychiatric disciplines, which meet once a week to discuss how each discipline "fits together to ... health care" that is given to patients. She has evaluated probationary employees on how they perform the mechanics of their job, and the quality and quantity of their work, but she has no idea of the weight given her evaluations. We conclude that Perry is not a supervisor under the Act. In sum, we note that, in finding these employees not to be supervisors, any direction that the above- considered social service department employees give to other employees in their respective units is incidental to their professional treatment of patients and is basically a product of the more highly developed professional skills that they possess vis-a- vis the other members of the social work team. 21 Medical Records This department is responsible for the processing, maintenance, filing, and completion of medical records. Anita Glassberg is the director and has overall responsibility in the department. She is assisted by a medical records manager and three assistant medical records managers. The Employer seeks to exclude Gutierrez, who works under Gloria Barton, the assistant medical records manager at MJBI. Barton is the overall supervisor for the entire records department at MJBI. Gutierrez, sometimes with the instruction or help of Barton, distributes the workload of the depart- ment to some 17 employees. Certain of this work is of a simple nature, but certain work, e.g., that involving record analyses or the coding and indexing of diagnoses, necessitates a degree of skill, and Gutier- rez decides who in the department will do that work. If an employee is absent from work, she can reassign that employee's work. It is Gutierrez' responsibility to insure that employees perform their work ade- quately and conform to hospital procedures and policies and she can issue, and has done so, warning notices to employees for their failure to conform to these standards. She also trains employees in their jobs. Barton and Gutierrez have jointly interviewed applicants for jobs and the recommendations which Gutierrez has given to Glassberg have been ultimate- ly adopted by Glassberg. As Gutierrez, inter alia, responsibly assigns work to and directs employees, disciplines them and gives effective recommendations on hiring, we find she is a supervisor and shall exclude her from the unit. Psychiatry The Employer seeks to exclude from the unit Supervising Psychologists Horner and Tucker. They are assigned to child adolescent services and report to Dr. Levy, who has clinical responsibility for rendering psychiatric services and responsibility for the training of residents in that service. Horner and Tucker are responsible for the general organization of the work undertaken by four staff psychologists. Horner and Tucker review test material, offer suggestions and ideas, or affirm that the staff psychologists are on the right track, and ensure that their work is of good quality. Horner and Tucker also interview applicants for vacant jobs and make oral recommendations which are usually followed by Levy. Levy, however, also interviews the applicants. Based on the various effective recommendations for hire that the two have made, and their apparent responsible direction of the work of employees, we find that Horner and Tucker are supervisors under the Act and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the collective-bargaining agreement covering the employees of Beth Israel 21 See Wing Memorial Hospital Association, 217 NLRB 1015 (1975). 300 BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER Medical Center, New York, New York, who are represented by District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, is hereby clarified by excluding as supervisors under Section 2(1 1) of the Act the control supervisor, the dispensing supervisor, and the super- vising pharmacist in the pharmacy; the supervisor of medical records in the medical records department; and the supervising psychologists in the psychiatry department. 301