Children's Hospital Of Pittsburgh

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 27, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 588 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh and Children's Hos-
pital Technical Employees Independent Association,
Petitioner. Case 6-RC-7167
January 27, 1976
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By MEMBERS FANNING, 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 Thomas M.
Lucas. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedures, Series 8, as amended, this
case was transferred by direction of the Regional Di-
rector for Region 6 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 rul-
ings 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 parties stipulated that the Employer was
involved in interstate commerce within the meaning
of the Act. However, the issue was raised at the hear-
ing whether the Employer was so intimately related
to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that the
Board should decline to assert jurisdiciton.
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, the Employer
herein, is a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation spe-
cializing in pediatric health care and employs a staff
of approximately 1,100. The hospital is governed by
a board of trustees who are selected from the com-
munity at large, and who appoint an administrator to
manage the hospital. The administration of the hos-
pital is divided among an associate administrator
and three assistant administrators. The board of trus-
tees also selects a medical director and chief of staff
who is responsible both to the board and to the ad-
ministrator. The medical director/chief of staff is
also chairman of the department of pediatrics at the
University of Pittsburgh Medical School.
The Employer's main facility is in a complex of
hospitals near the University of Pittsburgh medical,
pharmacy, dental, and nursing schools. The Employ-
er also utilizes other buildings for certain functions.
Along with six other hospitals in the near vicinity, the
Employer is a member of the University Health Cen-
ter of Pittsburgh.' The center was incorporated about
1962 to improve teaching, research, and clinical facil-
ities for the education of medical, dental, nursing,
and other university students. The center also serves
to increase efficiency and cut costs of member hospi-
tals. The center's board of trustees consists of repre-
sentatives from five member hospitals and the chan-
cellor of the University of Pittsburgh, who represents
the Psychiatric Institute, which was described as an
instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylva-
nia managed by the University. The Veterans Ad-
ministration Hospital is an associate member for the
purpose of teaching and receiving services provided
by other member hospitals.
The member hospitals have set up a number of
centralized services, such as laundry, data processing,
pharmacy, and central laboratories, each of which is
run by a member hospital. Children's, for example,
runs the central laboratories but charges other mem-
ber hospitals for the services provided. Member hos-
pitals have agreed not to appoint any physicians or
dentists to their staffs who do not have academic ap-
pointments with the University in the school of medi-
cine, dentistry, or public health. The salaries of these
professionals are shared by the University and the
hospitals in proportion to the time spent performing
academic or hospital duties. Many of the hospital
doctors spend only a small portion of their time
teaching-some spend but a few hours per day for a
few weeks. The center hospitals have also adopted
uniform policies for internships and residencies. Al-
though interns receive their checks from the Univer-
sity, the member hospitals where they serve pay their
full salaries. Chief residents, however, are paid by the
University because they spend most of their time
teaching.
The record also indicates that member hospitals
have a "gentlemen's agreement" allowing personnel
to retain seniority when transferring from one insti-
tution to another. However, an effort is made to
avoid raiding among the members, and there is, in
fact, little transfer at other than the professional lev-
els and in some centralized services. Member hospi-
tals meet and agree with the University on common
budget items.
Although the Employer, through membership in
the center, maintains a relationship with the Univer-
sity, as well as other member hospitals, the Employer
remains a separate corporation, with an individual
2 The other members are Presbyterian University Hospital, an adult gen-
The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the rec- eral care facility , Magee Women's Hospital, Montefiore Hospital, an adult
ord, including the briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of general care facility , Eye and Ear Hospital; Western Pyschiatric Institute
the parties . and Clinic; and Veterans Administration Hospital.
222 NLRB No. 90
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH 589
history and its own board of trustees. Subject to the
provisions of the center for doctors and dentists, nei-
ther the center nor the University controls the per-
sonnel policies of the Employer. The Employer, sub-
ject to the above limitations, does its own hiring and
firing, sets its own salaries, and maintains its own
personnel policies. In this connection, the Employer
has a history of collective bargaining with the Oper-
ating Engineers for a maintenance unit.
Under the provisions of the center's bylaws, a
member hospital need not utilize any of the central
services, nor need it provide any such service. Thus,
for example, Montefiore Hospital does not utilize the
central laundry services, while a nonmember facility,
Mercy Hospital, does. The record also shows that if
the Employer were to stop running the central labo-
ratories the laboratories would be transferred to an-
other hospital for management.' A member retains
its right to refuse to abide by any center decision. In
addition, the bylaws permit a member to withdraw.
Other than through its participation in the center, the
University does not concern itself with the adminis-
tration, labor relations, or personnel policies of the
Employer, and, other than approval of employees on
its faculty, is not involved in hiring, firing, or disci-
pling employees.
From the foregoing it is apparent that the Univer-
sity of Pittsburgh exercises only minimal control over
the Employer, especially with respect to nondoctors.
More important, whatever the degree of control by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over the Univer-
sity of Pittsburgh, the control by the Commonwealth
over the Employer is de minimis. The University of
Pittsburgh is not a state university but a private insti-
tution related to the Commonwealth. The University
is partially funded by the Commonwealth. One third
of the board of trustees is appointed by the Com-
monwealth and includes Commonwealth officials.
Although the Commonwealth may exercise a degree
of control over the University and although the Uni-
versity may have a relationship to the Employer
through the center, Commonwealth control over the
Employer is, at most, indirect, dilute, and remote.
For the above reasons, we find that the Employer
is not an instrumentality of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Accordingly, we find that it will effec-
tuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
over the Employer.
2. Petitioner is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
3 Apparently, central laboratory employees would be included in such a
transfer.
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting basically
of all technical employees at the Children's Hospital
of Pittsburgh. It contends that the appropriate unit
should include all regular full-time and part-time
technicians, technical/professional employees, assis-
tant section heads, and technical clerical employees,
including those in central clinical chemistry, hema-
tology, bacteriology, histology, research, X-ray, inha-
lation therapy, physical therapy, operating room, im-
munology, pathology, and central laboratories. The
Petitioner would exclude all physicians, registered
nurses, licensed practical nurses, nurses assistants,
service and maintenance employees, office clerical
employees, seasonal employees, part-time student
employees, all other employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
The Employer contends that a "wall-to-wall" unit
of all employees at Children's is the minimal appro-
priate unit for collective bargaining. In the alterna-
tive, the Employer contends that the Board should
find separate units of all professional employees, all
technical employees, service and maintenance em-
ployees, and office clerical employees. The Employer
would exclude all assistant section heads as supervi-
sory. There also exist issues regarding supervisory
status of particular individuals and whether certain
employees are technicals.
Although neither party took the position that the
unit must include employees of other hospitals affili-
ated with the University Health Center of Pennsylva-
nia, the issue was raised at the hearing. The member
hospitals are individually administered and have the
right to sever their membership in the center practi-
cally at will. Within certain limited exceptions, none
involving the unit sought herein, labor relations poli-
cies are individually administered. The Employer
does its own hiring, maintains its own personnel poli-
cy, and individually conducts labor negotiations. The
Employer also does all hiring for the central labora-
tories. Nothing in the bylaws of the center provides
for the conduct of labor negotiations. The center has
not been given authority to bargain on behalf of the
Employer, although it has been requested to advise
the Employer on labor relations. As indicated above,
the Employer has bargained with the Operating En-
gineers in a maintenance department unit. The Em-
ployer is currently subject to the second of consecu-
tive 3-year bargaining agreements. Although transfer
and interchange of employees occurs, it occurs pri-
marily in the central services. It does not regularly
occur throughout the hospital operations. According-
ly, we find that the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
is a separate employer for the purposes of collective
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining .4 The so-called central laboratories of the
center are located in various member hospitals and
other area buildings. However, they are run, staffed,
and controlled by the Employer. Accordingly, they
are included within the appropriate unit.
The Board has held that a separate unit of techni-
cal employees in a health care facility will be granted
"when such a unit is sought and the facts indicate
that the employees in that unit are, in fact, technical
employees." Nathan and Miriam Barnert Memorial
Hospital Association d/b/a Barnert Memorial Hospital
Center, 217 NLRB No. 132 (1975). Accordingly, we
find that a separate unit of the Employer's technical
employees constitutes an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
Having affirmed that a unit of technical employees
in a hospital is an appropriate unit, we shall now
consider whether the various categories of employees
whom the Petitioner seeks to include in the unit are,
in fact, technical employees. In determining whether
employees are technical employees, we shall apply
the Board's criteria that technical employees are
those "who do not meet the strict requirements of the
term `professional employee' as defined in the Act
but whose work is of a technical nature involving the
use of independent judgment and requiring the exer-
cise of specialized training usually acquired in col-
leges or technical schools or through special cours-
es." s
Medical Technologists: Children's Hospital Em-
ploys a number of persons classified as medical tech-
nologists in various laboratories. The Petitioner con-
tends that they are technical employees, or that if
they are professional they should be permitted to
vote whether they want to be included within the
technical unit because of a close community of inter-
est. The Employer contends that they are profession-
al employees.
Medical technologists in the hospital are graduates
of a 4-year college course with a bachelor of science
in medical technology and 1 year of clinical experi-
ence. Upon passing an examination, they are certi-
fied by the American Society of Clinical Patholo-
gists. A person may also be certified if he has a
bachelor's degree in chemistry, physics, or biology
and completes 4 years of clinical experience in the
laboratory.
Although certified technologists work side by side
with technicians, the technologists generally perform
the more complex assignments. They must be able to
perform the newest tests using the most sophisticated
laboratory equipment. Technologists are expected to
4 Cf. Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento, Inc, 217 NLRB No 131 (1975)
5 Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722, 724-725 6 See Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento, Inc, supra
(1959).
have the knowledge and ability to use all the labora-
tory equipment and to know if such equipment is
properly functioning. They are expected to recognize
deviations in test results and to be able to find the
incongruities.
We find the medical technologists to be profes-
sional employees. They have an advanced knowledge
acquired by a prolonged course of intellectual in-
struction, and they perform intellectually varied
work requiring the exercise of judgment and discre-
tion. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the
technical unit.
There are also several laboratory employees who
have completed their degree requirements for medi-
cal technologists, but who have not yet attained certi-
fication. Their job responsibilities appear nearly
identical to that of certified medical technologists.
Since these employees are performing professional
work and since they are seeking to obtain certifica-
tion, we find that they too are professional employees
falling within the definition of Section 2(12)(b), if not
2(12)(a), of the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude
such employees from the technical unit.
The laboratories also employ a number of persons
who have not been certified as technologists and who
are not attempting to satisfy certification require-
ments. They may possess degrees in chemistry, biolo-
gy, or related science. Although they perform work
alongside certified technologists and do many of the
jobs performed by certified technologists, the record
does not establish that they are professional employ-
ees within the meaning of the Act. The Act requires a
professional to have both varied judgmental work
and a formal training in the profession. On balance,
we find that the employees who are not certified or
seeking certification as medical technologists do not
meet the strict requirements of "professional employ-
ees" but are technicals. Accordingly, we shall include
them within the unit.
The Petitioner, in the alternative, 'requests that
medical technologists, as professional employees, be
allowed to participate in a self-determination elec-
tion to determine whether they wish to be repre-
sented in a technical unit. To do so here would be
inappropriate, since such an election might result in
the establishment of a unit limited to medical tech-
nologists, a unit, absent unusual circumstances, we
have found to be inappropriate.' Accordingly, we re-
ject Petitioner's alternate request?
Licensed Practical Nurses: It is clear from the rec-
ord, and no party contends otherwise, that nursing
assistants are not technical employees. Nursing assis-
tants are not required to be high school graduates,
7 See The Presbyterian Medical Center, 218 NLRB No 192 (1975)
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH 591
they are not licensed, they belong to no association,
and their training is basic bedside -training such as
that given nurses aides. In addition to the 60 to 70
nursing assistants at Children's Hospital, the Em-
ployer employs 2 licensed practical nurses. The
LPN's have taken specialized training and are li-
censed, having passed a state examination. General-
ly, LPN's are included in a unit of technical employ-
ees. Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, supra.
However, the Board is not welded to such a position
and will exclude LPN's from a technical unit in ap-
propriate circumstances. Bay Medical Center, Inc.,
218 NLRB No. 100 (1975). Such circumstances are
present here.
Medical nursing care for children is more complex
and demanding than nursing care for adults. As a
result, the Employer hires a much higher ratio of reg-
istered nurses in proportion to assistants than most
hospitals. In fact, the Employer does not hire LPN's
as such and is apparently phasing out the hiring of
any LPN's. It is clear from the record that the LPN's
perform the same work as nursing assistants and do
not need to exercise the requisite independent judg-
ment to be classed as technicals. Although the LPN's
possess the necessary technical training, they do not,
in this case, perform technical work. Accordingly, we
shall exclude them from the-unit.
Laboratory Technicians and Trainees: The Employ-
er employs certified technicians, uncertified techni-
cians, and laboratory trainees. Certified technicians
have completed a 12-18-month training course and
are certified by the American Society of Clinical Pa-
thologists. We find they are technical employees and
are included in the unit. Uncertified laboratory tech-
nicians have received on-the-job training. They per-
form many of the same tests as the certified techni-
cians. In some labs they do not, however, perform
the more complex standard tests. In view of their
close relationship with and their duties similar to
those of certified technicians, we find they are techni-
cal employees. Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, su-
pra.
Two of the central laboratories have trainees.
Trainees must be high school graduates. The labora-
tories provide a 1-year course and certify those who
pass the examination. The certification extends only
to the laboratories. In the first 3 months of training
they receive no compensation, and they are not guar-
anteed jobs upon successful completion of their
training. These employees undergoing training do
not meet the standard for technical employees, and
we shall exclude them from the unit. Those who have
successfully completed their training and received
laboratory certification and who are working for the
Employer perform the same tests as certified techni-
cians. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit.
Lab Clerks: This classification includes laboratory
charting clerks, clerk technicians, and labor - assis-
tants (dishwashers). Laboratory clerks and techni-
cians accept specifications, punch information into a
computer, spin down blood, and write requisitions.
Laboratory assistants are primarily dishwashers and
messengers. With few exceptions, the lab clerks do
not involve themselves in laboratory testing proce-
dures. They are not required to have any formal edu-
cation and do not receive other than minimal on-the-
job training. They are at the lower level of pay classi-
fication.
The Petitioner does not contend that they are tech-
nical employees, but argues that they should be in-
cluded in the technical unit because of a close com-
munity of interest with the technicians. In this
connection, the Petitioner argues that they have no
community of interest with service and maintenance
employees and are clearly not office clericals. None-
theless, it is apparent that lab clerks are not technical
employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from
the unit.
Part-time Employees: The Employer employs a
number of part-time employees who perform techni-
cal work. Generally, the technical part-time employ-
ees are students, primarily in the University of Pitts-
burgh dental school. Those who work more than 20
hours per . week receive pro rata vacation benefits,
but, otherwise, part-time employees receive no fringe
benefits. The part-time employees with whom we are
here concerned are those who perform technical
work and who by virture of their education possess
the necessary technical skills.
The Petitioner would exclude part-time employees
because, as students, they do not expect to be perma-
nent employees of the hospital. However, the test as
to whether part-time employees should be included is
not based on the expectancy of permanent employ-
ment, but is based on the part-time employees' rela-
tionship to the job-whether they perform unit work
and whether they have a sufficient regularity of work
to give them a community of interest with full-time
employees with respect to wages, hours, and other
working conditions. For this reason we shall, as we
traditionally have, include regular part-time employ-
ees who perform technical work in the unit herein
found appropriate.
The Employer also hires a number of summer em-
ployees. There is no indication in the record that they
have any expectancy of continued employment
either in other summers or throughout the year. Ac-
cordingly, they shall be excluded from the unit as
temporary employees. -
Research Technicians: There are a number of tech-
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nical employees employed in a variety of research
projects funded by various grants. The wages and
benefits such employees receive are generally similar
to other technicians but can be subject to negotiation
depending on qualifications and the size of research
funds. The grants vary in duration and in re-
strictions. Since the record is inadequate to de-
termine which grant projects employing technicians
are of such a nature as to establish a community of
interest with other technicians, we shall allow techni-
cal employees in such projects to vote subject to chal-
lenge.
Supervisory Status of Section Heads and Assistant
Section Heads
A number of questions were litigated at the hear-
ing concerning the supervisory status of section
heads and assistant section heads in the Employer's
various laboratories and technical departments. Al-
though there are differences in the departments, the
Employer's policy is basically uniform. Departmen-
tal differences will be pointed out below in our dis-
cussion of the individual departments.
The overall administration of the hospital is by an
administrator who delegates authority to an associate
administrator and three assistant administrators. The
medical staff is separately administered. Each de-
partment or division is run by a department head or
division head, herein uniformly called section heads.
Official policy provides that section heads have au-
thority to receive excuses for absence, require medi-
cal excuses, agree to pay sick leave, grant relief peri-
ods, grant overtime, advise on scheduling, and
promote employees. Some have effectively recom-
mended discharge of employees under them. They
spend the vast majority of their time in administra-
tive functions. Under the hospital's uniform pay poli-
cy, section heads and assistant section heads general-
ly as designated by a single or double "X."
Technicians are designated merely with a "P" and a
number. The record is clear and it is undisputed that
section heads are supervisors within the meaning of
the Act.
In dispute is the status of assistant section heads.
Like section heads, the assistants do not receive over-
time. Some of these persons are professionals and
would be excluded from the unit in any event. How-
ever, it appears from the record that others are non-
professionals. Assistant section heads do not have
the authority to hire, fire, discipline, or promote em-
ployees or to effectively recommend the same. Assis-
tant section heads spend most of their time perform-
ing unit work. Generally they spend a small part of
their time assisting section heads in quality control
and administrative tasks. With few exceptions, they
do not attend laboratory managers' meetings. With
the presence of a section head to direct employees,
the record shows that assistant section heads do not
responsibly direct employees. On this record, it ap-
pears that assistant section heads are more akin to
leadmen than supervisors. For these reasons, we find,
with the exceptions below, that assistant section
heads are not supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.
Robert Anderson is located at Falk Clinic, where
the Employer has laboratory facilities; Katheryn
Frisch is located in an office building. Because they
are isolated from the main facilities, no higher super-
visory authority is present in the immediate vicinity.
It also appears that Barbara Vale in bacteriology has
been delegated authority commensurate with Ander-
son and Frisch. Each of the three attends the month-
ly laboratory managers' meetings. Because of the
particular circumstances in which these persons are
involved, we find that each responsibly directs em-
ployees. Accordingly, we find that these particular
individuals, whether called assistant section heads or
section heads, are supervisors within the meaning of
the Act.
Departments With Technicians
To help clarify our Decision herein, we shall brief-
ly discuss departments in which issues were raised
concerning the unit status of employees. The unit,
however, is not necessarily limited to the depart-
ments herein listed but includes all technical employ-
ees employed by the Employer.
1. Central laboratory services is one of the central-
ized laboratories for the collection of out-patient
blood samples. It is located in the Falk Clinic and the
Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. This labora-
tory is supervised by Robert Anderson (see above)
and employs about five technicians and two clerks.
2. The central hematology laboratory, another of
the centralized laboratories, is located in four institu-
tions, including the Employer. Hematology performs
a number of different hematology, urinalysis, and
blood tests. Hematology is divided functionally into
four sections under the direction of Dr. Breitfeld, the
director. Ronald Costello is the administrative assis-
tant. He and the division chiefs constitute the other
supervisory authority. The assistant section heads are
not supervisors. They teach students, review the work
of technicians (quality control), and perform labora-
tory work. They do not possess supervisory authori-
ty, except in instances when section heads are absent.
In this circumstance, an assistant may adjust sched-
ules and reassign the workload. Such sporadic direc-
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH 593
tion of employees is not sufficient to create supervi-
sory status.
3. The central clinical chemistry department is an-
other centralized laboratory and is located in Presby-
terian Hospital, with facilities elsewhere, including
the Employer. Central clinical chemistry is function-
ally divided into several sections-automated, enzy-
mology, toxicology, endocrinology I, endocrinology
II, microchemistry, special services for research and
development, night call, and clerk charting. The lab-
oratory is directed by a pathologist. An associate di-
rector, also a pathologist, and a pathologist over each
section constitute the supervisory staff.
Interviewing, hiring, and firing is done by the ad-
ministrative assistant or director, although assistant
section heads may be involved in the interviewing
process. Assistant section heads may prepare em-
ployee report forms, but it does not appear that they
make effective recommendations respecting promo-
tions or disciplinary actions. Many of the sections
also have senior technicians. It appears that the assis-
tant section heads and senior technicians spend the
majority of their time performing technical work
with much of the rest spent on quality control and
trouble shooting. Accordingly, we find that they are
not supervisors.
The Employer specifically contends that Catherine
Baca and Mary Jo Sargus are supervisors. Catherine
Baca is the assistant section head in the microchemis-
try section. She does not have an "X" rating but rath-
er a "P 11." Mary Jo Sargus, also in pay grade "P
11," is designated as assistant section head in the spe-
cial services section. Catherine Baca rotates with
three other assistant section heads on weekends to fill
a similar position in the night call section. Baca
spends 60 to 70 percent of her time doing laboratory
work, with the balance spent primarily in trouble
shooting and quality control. Although Baca has
filled out evaluation forms, they are reviewed by the
director. Any scheduling Baca does is routine. On
rotation at the night call section, Baca works alone
and spends her time doing laboratory work. Accord-
ingly, we find that Catherine Baca is not a supervi-
sor.
Mary Jo Sargus has duties similar to those of Baca.
Sargus spends about 90 percent of her time perform-
ing unit work. Her other work is clerical and routine.
She does not hire, fire, discipline, interview, or rec-
ommend the same. She has filled out a performance
review but the reviews are given little attention unless
made by a division chief. Accordingly, we find that
Mary Jo Sargus is not a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the Act.
4. The central immunopathology laboratory is locat-
ed in three buildings, the main laboratory being in a
building owned by the University of Pittsburgh. This
is the smallest of the centralized laboratories. It is
under the direction of a pathologist and two assistant
directors, also pathologists. As previously indicated,
Katheryn Frisch is also a supervisor. She participates
in employee interviews, handles grievances, authoriz-
es time off and overtime, prepares employee evalua-
tions, and does not routinely perform unit work.
There is also an assistant section head who spends 75
percent of her time on unit work and the rest in qual-
ity control and routine scheduling. Although the as-
sistant head fills in, in the absence of Frisch, such
sporadic assumption of supervisory status is not suf-
ficient to make her a supervisor. Accordingly, we
find the assistant section head is not a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act.
5. The clinical study core laboratory has two re-
search assistants who both appear to be technologists
and therefore professionals. The part-time technician
is a summer employee.
6. Physical therapists at the Children's Hospital
have bachelor of science degrees and are certified by
the American Physical Therapy Association. To re-
cieve certification a therapist must have completed I
year of clinical experience. The chief physical thera-
pist is a supervisor. The parties stipulated that the
three therapists who work in the physical therapy de-
partment are professionals. Accordingly, we shall ex-
clude the physical therapists from the unit. Kaiser
Foundation Hospitals, 219 NLRB No. 78 (1975).
There is a physical therapy technician in the de-
partment who was certified upon completion of a 6-
week course. She has received additional on-the-job
training. She performs many of the same procedures
as the therapists. In view of the fact that the techni-
cian performs tasks similar to the therapists' and that
she is registered, we find that she is a technical em-
ployee.
7. Respiratory therapists must complete a 2-year
training program and pass an examination to be cer-
tified by the National Board of Respiratory Thera-
pists. Dean Sterling is the supervisor. These employ-
ees use various equipment that requires technical
training to operate. They receive training and per-
form work similar to that of the respiratory care tech-
nicians found in Barnert Memorial Hospital Center,
supra, to be technical employees. Accordingly, we
shall include them in the unit.
8. The endocrinology research laboratories are lo-
cated in Children's Hospital and are funded by a re-
search grant. Catherine Richards is a certified tech-
nologist and excluded as a professional. The other
technician lacks certification. Although she performs
complicated research procedures, there is insufficient
record evidence to determine whether she too is a
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
professional. In any event, she is involved in a fund-
ed research program and will be allowed to vote sub-
ject to challenge. (See above.)
9. The bacteriology laboratory employs several cer-
tified technologists who are excluded from the unit as
professionals. There are also two employees who are
not certified technologists but who are clearly techni-
cal employees included within the unit. There are
also two laboratory assistants who do not qualify as
technical employees and who will be excluded from
the unit. Barbara Vale, mentioned above, was stipu-
lated to be a supervisor.
10. The virology laboratory technicians are under
the supervision of Barbara Vale. Two of the techni-
cians also work for pathology. There is no evidence
that any of the technicians are certified technologists,
and they are included in the unit. The glass washer is
not technical and shall be excluded.
11. The pathology technician is indisputably a tech-
nical employee. The pathology assistants are profes-
sional employees, and the other employees in the de-
partment are clerical. -
12. The cardiology department employs a nurse
specialist and a clinical specialist, both of whom are
registered nurses and excluded. Also employed in the
department is a professional social worker. The EKG
technicians are not technical employees and will be
excluded. Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, supra.
Similarly, the cardiology aid is excluded. The cardio-
vascular technologist has the responsibility of operat-
ing the equipment necessary to perform a heart cath-
erization. Although he had had military training, he
is not a certified technologist and shall be included
within the unit. The ECHO technician has had train-
ing in respiratory therapy and has a college degree.
She has also received additional hospital training.
She is a technical employee and will be included in
the unit.
13. The radiology department employs a number of
X-ray technicians. Although their work is more com-
plex because the patients are children, it is not signif-
icantly different from the work performed by X-ray
technicians in Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, su-
pra. Accordingly, we shall include the X-ray techni-
cians in the unit. Two employees perform the same
work as registered technicians but are not themselves
registered. They shall also be included in the unit.
14. Cardiopulmonary technologists operate and cal-
ibrate profusionist equipment during the course of
open-heart surgery and in the intensive care unit.
One of the technologists is a registered nurse and
shall be excluded. The others are certified by, or in
the process of obtaining certification from, the
American Society of Extraperporical Technology.
Certification requires an examination following 2
years of experience and the completion of 100 clinic
cases. We find that the cardiopulmonary technolo-
gists are technical employees and shall include them
in the unit. Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento, Inc., su-
pra.
15. The operating room employs operating room
technicians, both certified and noncertified, and ster-
ilization technicians. Certification requires comple-
tion of an 8-month course and a national examina-
tion. Three operating room technicians are certified
and one is in the process of obtaining certification.
There are also three uncertified technicians. In ac-
cord with Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, supra,
we find that certified operating room technicians, in-
cluding any in the process of obtaining certification,
are technical employees. Unlike the situation in Bar-
nert, the uncertified technicians perform essentially
the same tasks as the certified technicians. All oper-
ating room technicians have, on that basis, a commu-
nity of interest. We shall include all in the unit.'
Sterilization technicians are employed in the oper-
ating room to wash and sterilize surgical equipment
and set up packages of sterile emergency and surgical
instruments. They receive 6 months' on-the-job train-
ing. In Taylor Hospital, 218 NLRB No. 179 (1975),
employees performing similar functions were exclud-
ed from the technical unit. We shall do so here.
16. The dental clinic employs five dental assistants
and a dental hygienist. The hygienist has received 2
years of training and served a 1-year internship. She
is registered by the American Dental Association
and licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
However, she does not meet the strict standard appli-
cable to professional employees and is, we find, a
technical employee. As the record is inadequate to
determine whether she is a supervisor, we shall allow
her to vote subject to challenge.
Dental assistants take and develop X-rays and as-
sist in treating the patients. Two are certified by the
American Dental Association, having completed
either 18 months of training or 1 year of college and
having passed an examination. Licensed dental lab
technicians were found to be technical employees in
Newington Children's Hospital, 217 NLRB No. 134
(1975). As certified dental assistants are similar, we
find that they are technical employees. The other
dental assistants are not certified. However, they per-
form the same work, exercise the same skills, and are
in the same pay grade. There is an on-the-job train-
ing program with a specified curriculum. On these
facts, we find that the uncertified dental assistants
are also- technical employees.
s See Trumbull Memorial Hospital, 218 NLRB No 122 (1975), medical
technicians
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH 595
17. The assistant medical photographer has been
trained through an apprenticeship and is eligible for
certification. She is qualified in the reproduction of
X-ray prints and pathology slides, operates sophisti-
cated equipment, and assists in training students. She
need not, however, have formal higher level of edu-
cation or be licensed. We find that she is not a tech-
nical employee. Newington Children's Hospital, supra.
18. The animal caretaker has trained with the
American Association for Laboratory Animal serv-
ices, completed a 14-week university course, and re-
ceived on-the-job training. He is responsible for the
care of animals used in hospital research. He assists
doctors in their tests.and records the reactions of the
animals. The parties agree, and we find, that the ani-
mal caretaker is a technical employee.
19. A number of other laboratories or depart-
ments employ technical employees whose status is
not in- dispute: histology, electromicroscopy, allergy-
immunology, endocrinology, genetics, pulmonary, renal
microdissection, and orthopedics. The technicians em-
ployed in these departments, subject to the general
conditions earlier set forth, are included in the unit.
20. Technical employees are also present in the pe-
diatric infectious disease, Dr. Albo's research, and Ren-
ziehausen trust research laboratories. As these are ap-
parently research facilities, we shall apply the above
standards for research technicians to these techni-
cians and permit-them to vote subject to challenge.
21. The parties are in agreement as to the exclu-
sion of EEG technicians, pharmacy technicians, and
play therapists. The record establishes that these em-
ployees are not technical. Newington Children's Hos-
pital, supra; Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, supra.
There remain for consideration certain ancillary is-
sues. Mary Jo Sargus and Catherine Baca were active
in soliciting authorization cards for the Petitioner.
The Employer contends that they are supervisors and
that, therefore, Petitioner's showing of interest is
tainted. As set forth above, employees in question are
not supervisors. Even had they been found to be su-
pervisors, their positions are not such that the inter-
est showing would be tainted,- for employees would
not equate their solicitation with that of manage-
ment. The Employer also contends that the
Petitioner's showing of interest is inadequate because
it contains authorizations signed by persons excluded
from the unit and the unit contains certain persons
sought to be excluded by the Petitioner. The showing
of interest is an administrative, not a statutory, mat-
ter. We are satisfied that Petitioner has an adequate
showing of interest to proceed with an election in a
unit of technical employees.
We have excluded certified technologists and other
employees sought by the Petitioner because they are
professionals. In the alternative, Petitioner has asked
for a unit of all professional employees. This issue
was not fully litigated at the hearing and is therefore
not properly before us in this proceeding.
In accord with our decision-herein and subject to
the findings and rulings made above, we find the fol-
lowing unit to be appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
All regular full-time and part-time technical
employees employed by the Employer at its hos-
pital facilities in Pittsburgh, - Pennsylvania, in-
cluding those employed in the central laborato-
ries managed by the Employer, but excluding all
nontechnical employees and professional em-
ployees, including medical technologists, confi-
dential, office, and hospital clerical employees,
service and maintenance employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
MEMBER PENELLO, dissenting:
For the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion
in Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, supra, I disagree
with my colleagues' finding that a unit of all techni-
cal employees in a hospital is appropriate.