Damon Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1978

234 N.L.R.B. 387 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DAMON MEDICAL CENTER
Center For Laboratory Medicine, Inc. d/b/a Damon
Medical Center and Industrial Workers Union
Local 837, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 4-RC-
12704
January 24, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING
PETITION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hear-
ing was held before Hearing Officer William Josem
on June 21, 1977, and continued before Hearing
Officer Phyllis Allen on July 12, 1977. Following the
hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, the case was transferred to the Board for
decision. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief in
support of its unit position.l
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 Officers'
rulings made at the hearing and finds them free from
prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
1. The Center for Laboratory Medicine, Inc., is a
Pennsylvania corporation engaged in testing human
specimens at its Trevose, Pennsylvania, facility.
During the 12 months immediately prior to the date
of the hearing the Employer sold or shipped services
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located
outside of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
We find that Damon Medical Center is an employ-
er within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and
that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. Petitioner is a labor organization and claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
I The Employer's bnef was filed in the instant case and in connection
with the proceedings in Case I -RC- 15120 in which a different labor
organization petitioned for a similar unit limited to drivers at one of the
Employer's laboratories located in another State. The Employer also moved
the Board to consolidate the two proceedings (the Employer's request for
review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election in
Case I-RC-15120 having been granted by the Board by telegraphic order
dated June 28, 1977). Inasmuch as a hearing has been held and a full record
developed independently in each of these proceedings, and absent any
showing why these proceedings should now be consolidated, the Employer's
motion is hereby denied.
I There are approximately 35 employees in the unit requested by the
Petitioner and 350 employees in the unit which the Employer contends is
234 NLRB No. 56
3. A question concerning commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(cXl)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner seeks a unit of all drivers employed
at the Employer's Trevose, Pennsylvania, laboratory
excluding any other drivers employed by the Em-
ployer at any other facility or at any other location.
The Employer contends that the appropriate unit
would include all technicians, medical technologists,
laboratory aides, laboratory assistants, cytotechnolo-
gists, phlebotomists, customer relations employees,
maintenance employees, accession employees, data
point employees, telex operators, stockroom employ-
ees, plant clericals, data processing employees, dis-
patchers, drivers, and lead drivers at the Trevose
laboratory, and at the area served by the Trevose
laboratory on a daily basis. 2 The Employer also
urged at the hearing and in its brief to the Board that
it is a health care institution within the meaning of
the 1974 health care amendments and hence that any
unit determination must be made in light of the
congressional admonition against undue prolifera-
tion of bargaining units in the health care industry.3
The Employer's main laboratory is located in
Trevose, Pennsylvania, and operates on a 24-hour-
per-day, 7-day-per-week basis. In addition to the
main laboratory at Trevose, the Employer operates
six bleeding stations-one at the main laboratory
and the remaining five at separate locations. The
Employer serves hospitals, nursing homes, clinics,
and private doctors by examining human medical
specimens and interpreting test results.
In addition to the 35 drivers employed at the
Trevose facility, the Employer also employs nine
housecall technicians who visit bedridden patients in
nursing homes and private homes to take specimens.
Specimens are transported to the main laboratory
either by drivers who have assigned routes or by the
housecall technicians. Both the drivers and the
housecall technicians drive the same type of compa-
ny car.
Specimens brought to the laboratory are either
delivered directly to the appropriate laboratory
department or taken to the accessioning room where
they are logged in by the driver and preprocessed for
appropriate. In addition to the drivers assigned to the main laboratory and
included in the unit sought by the Petitioner it appears from the record that
there are full- and part-time drivers assigned to other locations to pick up
and deliver specimens from other areas.
3 We are not persuaded by this contention. As the legislative history of
the health care amendments makes clear, the special provisions of the Act
applicable to health care institutions relate to "patient care situations" and
not to "purely administrative health care connected facilities." See 120
Cong. Rec. H4594 (daily ed. May 30, 1974); 120 Cong. Rec. S73 10 (daily ed.
May 7, 1974). We conclude that since testing human medical specimens
does not involve patient care, the Employer is not a health care institution
within the meaning of the amendments. See Damon Medical Laboratory,
Inc. 234 NLRB 333 (1977).
387
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testing by employees classified as accessioners. When
specimens are delivered directly to a laboratory
department the driver and the laboratory technician
working in that department are jointly responsible
for unpacking the specimens.
After a specimen is tested the results may be
telexed, telephoned, or sent by data point directly to
the hospital or other customer. In less pressing cases,
test results are delivered by a driver to the customers
on his assigned route.
In addition to collecting specimens and delivering
test results, drivers also deliver medical supplies used
by customers for taking blood and other specimens.
Each morning drivers go to the laboratory stockroom
where they pick up such supplies. Drivers also have
occasion to enter the customer service area of the
laboratory to check on customer orders for supplies
and to discuss customer complaints or problems with
customer service personnel.
Drivers are under the overall supervision of the
traffic and materials manager who also supervises
phlebotomists, housecall technicians, and stockroom
employees. Drivers enjoy the same fringe benefits as
other employees including life insurance, vacation
pay, pension plan, sick leave, and medical plan. All
employees have access to an employee cafeteria and
to an employee lounge. The same evaluation form is
used for all employees. All nonexempt employees,
including drivers, are paid on an hourly basis and on
the same payroll. All employees assigned to the
Trevose laboratory punch the same timeclock. No
special training or educational background is re-
quired for employment as a driver or for several
other employee classifications such as phlebotomist,
stockroom employees, laboratory aid, or accessioner.
Phlebotomists and stockroom employees, as well as
drivers, are required to have valid drivers' licenses.
The Employer posts all nonexempt vacancies and all
employees are allowed to bid on vacancies. At least
4 See Mc-Mor-Hon Trucking Co., Inc., 166 NLRB 700 (1967), and cases
cited therein.
5 Compare, Damon Medical Laboratory, Inc., supra. There a labor
organization petitioned for a unit limited to drivers at one of the employer's
four employees currently working as drivers began
their employment in other classifications.
The Board has found that a unit of drivers may be
an appropriate unit for collective bargaining when it
is established that the drivers comprise a distinct and
homogeneous group who share a community of
interest sufficiently different from that of other
employees. 4 Consideration of all of the relevant
factors in the instant proceeding demonstrates, how-
ever, that the drivers in issue here enjoy no such
distinct community of interest as to warrant their
separate representation.5 Thus the record indicates
that although drivers spend most of their time away
from the main laboratory, they have frequent and
varied work contacts with other classifications of
employees including accessioners, laboratory assis-
tants, stockroom employees, and customer service
personnel. Not only do drivers share common
benefits and conditions of employment with other
laboratory employees but drivers are also grouped
under the same supervision as several other classifi-
cations of employees. Furthermore, there is evidence
of substantial overlap of job functions and responsi-
bilities between drivers and other classifications of
employees. For example, housecall technicians col-
lect specimens and return them to the laboratory
using company cars; laboratory employees other
than drivers regularly deliver test results to custom-
ers; and stockroom employees using company vehi-
cles regularly deliver medical supplies.
In light of these findings, and inasmuch as the
Petitioner at the hearing disclaimed interest in
representing drivers in any unit other than the one
petitioned for, we shall order that the petition be
dismissed.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
laboratories located in Massachusetts. On review of the Regional Director's
Decision and Direction of Election finding such a unit appropriate for
collective bargaining, the Board ordered the petition dismissed.
388