California College of Podiatric Medicine Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 813 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

CALIF. COLLEGE PODIATRIC MEDICINE CORP. 813
California College of Podiatric Medicine Corporation
and Hospital and Institutional Workers ' Union, Lo-
cal 250, Service Employees International Union,'
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 20-RC-10059
March 10, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Patrick W. Jordan.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, by direction of the Regional Director for
Region 20, this case was transferred to the National
Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, the
Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs.
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 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 the case, the Board finds:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit consisting of
all employees employed by the Employer, including
accounting office employees, dietary employees,
maintenance employees, housekeeping employees,
clinical employees, PBX operators, hospital aides,
medical records employees, admitting workers, labora-
tory employees, plethsmography technicians, operating
room clerks, operating room orderlies, supply clerks,
clinical clerical employees; excluding confidential cleri-
cal employees, registered nurses, physicians, academic
faculty, personnel assistants, laboratory technicians, X-
ray technicians, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
The Employer is a not-for-profit California corpora-
tion consisting of a combined educational institution
and hospital. Its total yearly revenue for its 1970-71
fiscal year was $2,147,959, of which $838,990 was
derived from operations of the college and $1,308,969
from the operation of the hospital and clinic. The col-
lege, a 4-year professional school with a program lead-
ing to the degree of Doctor of Podiatric Medicine, has
no corporate existence apart from the hospital, which
occupies an adjacent building. The Employer has taken
the position, inter alia, that under Section 2(2) of the
Act the hospital should be deemed exempt from the
Board's jurisdiction.
195 NLRB No. 146
As stated the operations of the Employer are divided
into two basic areas. The college is concerned with the
educational activities of the students and is under the
direction of the dean and vice president of Podiatrics,
Medical and Curricular Affairs, who reports to the
president of the combined institution. The other area is
concerned with the administration and operation of the
hospital-clinic, as well as the fiscal and administrative
affairs of the entire institution, and is under the vice
president of Administration and Fiscal Affairs, who
also reports to the president. The hospital is a 28-bed
acute general hospital and is licensed as such according
to the State of California as a general hospital.
A basic part of the college curriculum is clinical
instruction in the hospital-clinic. It appears that ap-
proximately 85 percent of the college faculty divide
their time between the classroom and the hospital-
clinic in the performance of their teaching duties.
The record reveals that approximately 47 employees
are sought in the stipulated unit. It appears that four
of these employees, all clericals, devote all their time to
college operations, and their salaries are included in the
budget for the college.
Approximately 19 of the unit employees, including
those employed in accounting, dietary, maintenance,
housekeeping, and PBX, perform duties that relate to
both the college and hospital-clinic functions. These
employees receive compensation from the hospital por-
tion of the budget.
The remaining unit employees, approximately 24 in
number, service only the hospital-clinic and are com-
pensated from the hospital portion of the budget. These
employees include the hospital aides, admitting
worker, medical records employees, plethysmography
technician, operating room clerk, operating room or-
derly, clinic supply clerk, and clinical clerical person-
nel.
Although the Board has recently asserted jurisdic-
tion over nonprofit universities,' the issue presented
herein is whether Section 2(2) of the Act prohibits the
Board from asserting jurisdiction over a hospital oper-
ated in conjunction with such a university or college,
where no part of the net earnings of that hospital inures
to the benefits of any private shareholder or individual.
' Cornell University, 183 NLRB No. 41. In view of our determination in
the instant case, we find it unnecessary to consider Petitioner's contention
that the gross revenue from the Employer's hospital operations should be
combined with the gross revenue of its college operations so that the total
revenue would exceed the $ I million standard established by the Board. See
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, Section 103.1. Likewise, it is
unnecessary to pass on the Employer's contention that its collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Independent Staff Organization of the College
of Podiatric Medicine, ISO, constitutes a bar to the instant petition.
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has had the opportunity to consider the
exemption of Section 2(2)2 in prior cases.' In the instant
case, the .Employer, which operates both a college and
a hospital, is a nonprofit corporation. This nonprofit
corporation operates and supports a nonprofit hospital.
Therefore, it appears that insofar as the Employer fur-
nishes hospital services it falls within the statutory ex-
clusion of enterprises over which the Board may assert
jurisdiction.
In the present case, we note that the majority of the
approximately 47 employees petitioned for spend 100
percent of their time performing services directly for
and in the hospital. Approximately 19 of the remaining
employees perform both hospital-and college- related
functions, but the record does not reveal any division
of time spent for each activity. However, it is clear that
these employees are paid by the hospital and perform
services that are closely and directly related to, or in
some situations inseparable from, the hospital services.
Only about 4 of the requested employees perform work
exclusively related to the college operation.
Thus, the majority of the petitioned-for employees
are essentially employees of a nonprofit hospital, the
earnings of which hospital do not inure to the benefit
of any private shareholder or individual. We conclude
that, because of the specific exemption in Section 2(2)
of the statute, we are precluded from asserting jurisdic-
tion herein. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Section 2(2) of the Act excludes from the term "employer," i nter alia,
"any corporation or association operating a hospital, if no part of the net
earnings inures to the benefits of any private shareholder or individual."
' Loyola University Medical Center, 194 NLRB No 30, Sierra Hospital
Foundation, 181 NLRB 869.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.