District Nursing Association of Fall River

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 476 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
District Nursing Association of Fall River and Local
526, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Petitioner. Case 1-RC-13092
May 1, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On January 2, 1974, Petitioner filed a petition
under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, thereby seeking to represent certain
of the Employer's employees. Subsequently, the
Employer moved for dismissal of the petition. A
formal hearing on the petition was held on January
18, 1974, before Hearing Officer Tamara A. Gilman.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8 , as amended, the Regional
Director for Region I directed the transfer of the
case to the Board for decision. Thereafter the
Petitioner filed a brief.
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 made at the heanng and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case the Board finds:
1. The Employer is a corporation organized
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachu-
setts and engaged in providing health care and
nursing services to patients in their homes in
accordance with doctors' orders.'
In 1972, the Employer had gross income of
$224,656.52. Of this total $55,827.59 was received
from Medicare; $16,185.00 from Medicare Cost
Analysis Adjustment; $29,922.52 from the Welfare
Department; $3,349.51 from the Veterans Adminis-
tration; and $2,336.14 from the Board of Health. In
addition, the Employer received $12,575.78 from
1 Although the Employer maintained at the hearing that it is an
organization of a "chartable nature " it failed to submit evidence that it is
incorporated under the not -for-profit section of Massachusetts law as a
charitable organization Accordingly , the Board has no basis on which to
make a finding in this regard In any event under the circumstances of this
case and particularly in light of our decision in Drexel Home, Inc., 182
NLRB 1045, our conclusion here would not be altered even assuming the
Employer is formally organized as a chartable entity.
2 Visiting Nurses Association, Inc., 188 NLRB 155; Visiting Nurses
Association of Sacramento, 187 NLRB 731.
private patients; $4,640.83 from Blue Cross-Blue
Shield ; and $2, 121.16 from the American Cancer
Society.
While the Employer does not maintain hospital or
nursing home facilities it nevertheless renders health
care services and falls within the related health care
facility category over which we have previously
asserted jurisdiction .2 Accordingly, as the Employer
receives gross revenues of over $ 100,000 per year, we
find that its operations have a substantial effect on
commerce and that it will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(cXl) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.3
4. We find that the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All registered nurses and licensed practical nurses
at the Employer's 101 Rock Street , Fall River
location, excluding the director , the assistant
director, the supervisor , the coordinators, the
part-time employee who services the Freetown
area , all office clerical employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN MILLER, dissenting:
I would not regard the charitable furnishing of
essentially local health care and nursing services as
an industry substantially affecting interstate com-
merce, nor am I aware of any jurisdictional standard
applicable thereto. Accordingly, I would dismiss the
petition.
I am of the opinion, upon further consideration,
that Visiting Nurses Association of Sacramento, 187
NLRB 731, was decided erroneously and I would
overrule it.
3 At the hearing the Employer contended that a collective-bargaining
agreement between itself and the Massachusetts Nursing Association
constitutes a bar to the petition herein . An examination of the documents
submitted at the hearing, including the collective-bargaining agreement and
a letter from the Nursing Association to the Employer dated October 30,
1973, indicates however that notice to terminate the agreement was given
more than 60 days in advance of the agreement's expiration date. In any
event, the record indicates that the Nursing Association has withdrawn any
claim to representation that at may have had. Accordingly , we find that the
agreement is not a bar to the petition herein.
210 NLRB No. 73