Beth Israel Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 27, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 295 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

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