Comprehensive Health Planning Council

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 1191 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PANNING COUNCIL. 1191
Comprehensive Health Planning Council of South-
eastern Michigan and Comprehensive Health
Planning Council of Southeastern Michigan
Managers, Petitioner. Case 7-RC-15884
July 13, 1981
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Sylvia A.
James of the National Labor Relations Board. On
June 18, 1980, the Regional Director for Region 7
issued a Decision and Direction of Election in
which he found that four of the Employer's five
managers were employees within the meaning of
the Act and that they constituted a unit appropriate
for bargaining. Thereafter, in accordance with Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the
Employer filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director's decision, contending that its
managers were supervisors and/or managerial em-
ployees, and that, in any event, they did not consti-
tute a separate unit appropriate for bargainining.
The Petitioner filed a statement in opposition to the
request for review. By telegraphic order dated July
18, 1980, the National Labor Relations Board
granted the Employer's request for review. There-
after, the Employer filed a brief on review,' and
the Petitioner relied on its previously filed state-
ment in opposition.
The Board has considered the entire record with
regard to the issues on review, and makes the fol-
lowing findings:
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. Petitioner is not a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.2
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of health
care professional managers, contending that these
individuals are employees within the meaning of
Section 2(3) of the Act. The Employer, on the
other hand, asserts that the managers are supervi-
sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) and/or
managerial employees and, therefore, are not cov-
' The Employer also filed a request for oral argument We hcrebch
deny this request as the record. the request for resiew, nd the briefs
adequately present the issues and contentions of the parties
2 In light of our finding. njfta, that the managers are uperxisors, and
since it appears that the Petitioner is comprised solel5 of the manlagers
involved herein, we find that Petitioner does not represent eniployees and
therefore is not a labor organization swithin the meaning of the Act
256 NLRB No. 183
ered by the Act. In the alternative, the Employer
contends that, if the managers are found to be em-
ployees, they do not constitute an appropriate unit
separate from other administrative personnel.
The Employer is a nonprofit corporation which
provides health care planning services to seven
counties in southeastern Michigan. An executive di-
rector heads the organization, which is divided into
five operational divisions: Planned development
and coordination, health system development, ad-
ministrative services, project review, and data man-
agement and analysis. The divisions are adminis-
tered by division directors, who, along with other
administrative personnel, report to the executive di-
rector. One manager is assigned to each division
and he or she reports to the respective division di-
rector. Approximately 70-80 professional and cleri-
cal staff are divied among the divisions. The cleri-
cal employees are represented by Local 79, Service
Employees International Union, and the profession-
al staff is represented by International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW).
The professional staff operates essentially as a
"think tank" for governmental and health care
agencies. They study and report on legislation af-
fecting health care and health care planning, pro-
posed health care projects, health care facility
usage patterns, and the general health of the resi-
dents of southeastern Michigan.
The managers assign, coordinate, and review the
work of the professionals,3 assure that time targets
are met, and participate to varying degress in the
general direction of their respective divisions. They
also spend a significant amount of time performing
the same type of work as the professionals. 4
I Although at the time of the hearing two of the managers had no pro-
fessional employees assigned to them, it is clear from the record that, due
to the nature of the Employer's operations, the professional employees
are transferred to different managers on a project-by-project basis. Thus.
it seems clear that the current professional assignments are temporary
and we note that no party contends that such assignments are permanent
4 In finding the managers to be employees, the Regional Director,
citing Adelphi University. 195 NLRB 639, 643-4 (1972). relied In part on
the facts that "the individuals hom the managers oversee sould
not be prt of the petitioned-for bargaining unit as they are represented
by other labor organizations" and that "substantial parts of [the manag-
er'] time is spent on professiolnal tasks " In .4delphi l:'nitveri., we held
that persons who spent less than half their time supervising emplosers in
another unit were not supervisors ithin the meaning of Sec 2111). In
N'e York niveroir,, 221 NLRB 1 148. 155-57 (1975). e explained our
.4delphi holding by noting that the alleged supervisors had been hired as
professional employees. as opposed to supervisors, and that their part-
time supervision of employees performing ancillary services did ot
change the professionals' relation to management We find .4delphi inap-
posite to the present case Were e to find the managers to be employ-
ees. we would find also that their communit tit interest lies with the
professional cmployees aid that the would properly be included n a
unit wsith them lFurther it i clear that the managers ere hired to act as
supersvisors for tt Em lnploycr land that their superxisors actlisitles are not
mer ant ;illar! to their pofessional duties
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record shows that the managers have the
authority to recommend and in some cases actually
have recommended hire, transfer, discipline, dis-
charge, commendation, promotion, pay increases,
and overtime. The recommendations, however, are
reviewed by higher management and are not
always followed. The managers also prepare annual
evaluations of the employees who work under
them, and these evaluations are placed in the em-
ployees' personnel files.
The UAW contract provides that "supervisors,"
defined as "the manager-level person to whom the
employee primarily reports," are the persons with
whom employees arrange vacation time. The man-
agers testified, however, that they forwarded all
vacation requests to their division directors. In ad-
dition, it appears that the division directors must
sign all timeslips and, therefore, ultimately approve
all time off, sick pay, and vacation pay. The con-
tract also states that "supervisors" (no definition
provided) shall arrange compensatory time with
the employee and that employees work from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. unless they have modified their schedule
with the appropriate supervisor. Further, two of
the managers received memorandums from man-
agement directing "primary management level per-
sons" to coordinate clerical tardiness makeup and
"supervisors" to make appropriate compensatory
time arrangments.
Both the UAW and the SEIU contracts provide
that the managers are the first step in the grievance
procedure. Further, the record shows that, while
many, if not most, grievances were taken by the
union stewards directly to the second step, it is un-
disputed that in one instance management refused
to hear a grievance until it was processed through
the manager in the first step. In another case, a
manager resolved a grievance at the first step, al-
though his decision subsequently was overturned
by higher management.
Finally, the managers are paid at a higher rate
than the senior professional employees beneath
them in the Employer's hierarchy. Their job de-
scriptions and advertisements placed by the Em-
ployer for manager positions indicate that the man-
agers are to supervise employees.
Based on the foregoing and the record as a
whole, we find that the managers possess and exer-
cise supervisory authority within the meaning of
Section 2(11). Thus, the managers assign, coordi-
nate, and review the work of their subordinates
and prepare annual evaluations which become part
of the employees' permanent personnel files. Fur-
ther, in sending memorandums regarding compen-
satory time and tardiness makeup procedures to at
least two of the managers, the Employer assigned
those managers the authority given to "supervi-
sors" and "primary management-level persons" as
set forth in the corresponding provisions of the
UAW and SEIU collective-bargaining agreements.
Finally, we emphasize that the managers are the
representatives of the Employer with whom em-
ployees deal at the first step of the grievance pro-
cedures established by both collective-bargaining
agreements, that they have exercised their authori-
ty to adjust grievances on behalf of the Employer
to some degree, and that the Employer has relied
on this authority in the handling of at least one
grievance. Accordingly, we conclude that the man-
agers are supervisors. See Formco, Inc., 245 NLRB
127 (1979). As we have found that the individuals
Petitioner claims to represent are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, we shall dismiss the
petition. 5
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition in Case 7-
RC-15844 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
c Since we have concluded that the managers are supervisors, we find
it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether they are also managerial em-
ployees