Baptist Medical Center-Princeton

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 516 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Baptist Medical Center-Princeton ' and Hospital Em-
ployees Local 1318 of Laborers International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 10-RC-10135
February 7, 1975
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Donald E.
Howard of the National Labor Relations Board.
Following the close of the hearing, the Regional
Director for Region 10 transferred this case to the
Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer filed a
brief.
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 made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is a nonprofit Alabama corpora-
tion with its principal offices located in Birmingham,
Alabama, where it owns and operates a 427-bed
nonprofit hospital. The Employer's gross annual
revenues exceed $500,000 and it also annually
purchases and receives drugs and other supplies
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources
located outside the State of Alabama. The Employer
concedes that it is subject to the jurisdiction of the
Board and we find that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction in this proceeding.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(cxl) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. At the hearing, the parties stipulated to include
the following employees in the bargaining unit:
licensed practical nurses, aides , orderlies , housekeep-
I The names of the Employer and the Petitioner appear as amended at
the hearing.
2 Despite this stipulation, the parties were in broad disagreement as to
the inclusion or exclusion of the various clerical classifications , as discussed
more fully below.
ing employees, maintenance employees, dietary
employees, clerical employees not in the business
office,2 inhalation therapy employees, X-ray techni-
cians and employees in the dark room, EKG
technicians, EEG technicians, laundry employees,
escort aides, receiving and purchasing clerks, labora-
tory employees, pharmacy employees, surgical tech-
nicians, transcribers, blood collectors, cardio-pulmo-
nary technicians, anesthesia technicians, physical
therapy employees, emergency medical technicians,
central sterile technicians, pathology assistants and
other non-professional technicians and technolo-
glSts.3
The only area of disagreement between the parties
with respect to the unit concerns the placement of
various clerical employees. Some of the clerical
employees, hereinafter referred to as hospital cleri-
cals, work at the Princeton hospital, while other
clerical employees, hereinafter referred to as business
office clericals, work at a separate administrative
building about 4-5 miles away. The Employer
contends that all office clerical employees should be
included in the bargaining unit, whereas the Petition-
er maintains that only those clericals who perform
functions strictly related to patient service should be
included and all other clericals, who perform mainly
business functions, should be excluded.
The record establishes that the business office
clericals perform clerical and administrative type
functions in such areas as purchasing, receiving,
inventory control, accounts payable and receivable,
development and fund raising, public relations,
personnel, payroll, and printing. Although their
hours of work, wage rates, fringe benefits, and skills
are similar to those of the clericals who work directly
at the hospital, the business office clericals are
separately supervised and have virtually no contact
and/or interchange with hospital clericals or employ-
ees included in the bargaining unit.
The hospital clericals include stenographers, cash-
iers, and admitting, coding, data control, financial,
inventory, payroll, personnel, and insurance clerks,
some of whom are attached to various hospital staffs
and some of whom are not. For the most part, these
clerical employees have daily contact with unit
employees and share common supervision, wage
rates, fringe benefits, hours of work, and facilities
with employees. In addition, some hospital clericals
have frequent contact with patients.
Following the enactment of the health care
amendments to the Act, the Board decided to hear
3 The parties agreed to exclude all registered dieticians , registered nurses,
registered laboratory technologists ASCP and AMT, registered inhalation
therapists, registered physical therapists , and all other professional employ-
ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
216 NLRB No. 110
BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER-PRINCETON 517
oral argument on issues concerning the scope of
appropriate bargaining units in hospitals. On Janu-
ary 27, 1975, the Board heard oral arguments in
various cases then pending before it as well as
arguments from interested parties concerning the
unit placement of different types of hospital employ-
ees, including employees in various clerical categor-
ies.
Because issues concerning the inclusion or exclu-
sion of clerical employees in broad hospital units
were argued in connection with many of the cases
before the Board for oral argument, the Board is
preparing guidelines with respect to the unit place-
ment of such employees. Rather than delay the
instant case until after decisions in the above-
mentioned cases have issued, and in view of the
relatively small number of clerical employees and the
large number of other types of employees in the
bargaining unit whose unit placement is not disput-
ed, we have decided not to resolve the issues with
respect to the unit placement of either group of
clericals at this time . Thus, we shall allow the
business office clericals and the hospital clericals to
vote subject to challenge and we shall direct the
Regional Director to segregate the ballots of each
group from one another and from the other unit
employees. Thereafter, the issues with respect to the
unit placement of these employees will be resolved.
Accordingly, we find that the following unit is
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full time and regular part time employees
employed at Baptist Medical Center-Princeton
hospital, 701 Princeton Avenue, Birmingham,
Alabama, including licensed practical nurses,
aides , orderlies , housekeeping employees, mainte-
nance employees , dietary employees, inhalation
therapy employees, X-ray technicians and em-
ployees in the dark room, EKG technicians, EEG
technicians, laundry employees, escort aides,
receiving and purchasing clerks, laboratory em-
ployees, pharmacy employees, surgical techni-
cians, transcribers, blood collectors, cardiopul-
monary technicians, anesthesia technicians, phys-
ical therapy employees, emergency medical tech-
nicians, central sterile technicians, pathology
assistants and other non-professional technicians
and technologists; but excluding all registered
dieticians, registered nurses, registered laboratory
technologists ASCP and AMT, registered inhala-
tion therapists, registered physical therapists, and
all other professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.4
5. At the hearing, the parties also raised an issue
concerning the voting eligibility of certain individu-
als who engaged in an economic strike against the
Employer. The strike commenced on February _20,
1974, and continued until October 3, 1974. All of the
strikers were notified prior to August 26, 1974, the
effective date of the recent health care legislation,
that they had been permanently replaced.
The Employer contends that the strikers are no
longer carried on its payroll and therefore are not
employees eligible to vote in any election. In
addition, the Employer maintains that these individ-
uals are not entitled to participate in an election
because the strike was unprotected activity in view of
the Petitioner's failure to give the Employer statutory
notice as required in Section 8(g) of the Act. On the
other hand, the Petitioner raises issues concerning
the nature of the Employer's termination of the
strikers and additionally urges that the strikers
retained their status as employees and therefore are
eligible to vote in the election.
After thoroughly reviewing the contentions of the
parties in this regard, we are of the opinion that
issues relating to the eligibility of the strikers to vote
in the election can best be resolved through the
challenge-procedure. Accordingly, we shall allow the
individuals who engaged in the economic strike to
vote in the election herein directed subject to
challenge.
[Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
4 As indicated above, the Board has not yet formulated its policy
concerning the placement of clerical employees in units of hospital
employees . Therefore, we have not included the designation of clericals in
the description of the appropriate unit. If the challenged ballots of the
clericals are determinative, we shall resolve them in accordance with our
resolution as to their appropriate placement, and shall make the unit
description more specific in this respect.
5 See Kingsport Press, Inc., 146 NLRB 260,146 NLRB 1111 (1964).