Franciscan Sister of Little Falls

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 6, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 799 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF LITTLE FALLS
Franciscan Sisters of Little Falls, Minnesota Operat-
ing St. Francis Hospital and Local No. 580, Labor-
ers International Union of North America, Peti-
tioner. Case 18-RC-11637
April 6, 1979
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On January 11, 1978, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 18 issued a Decision and Order dismissing the
petition in the above-entitled proceeding on the
grounds that the petitioned-for unit of maintenance
department employees' was inappropriate. There-
after, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely re-
quest for review alleging that the Regional Director
erred in failing to find the maintenance unit appropri-
ate. On February 21, 1978, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board by telegraphic order granted the Petition-
er's request for review. Subsequently, the Employer
filed a brief supporting the Regional Director's deci-
sion.
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 considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issue under review, including
the Employer's brief, and makes the following find-
ings:
The Employer operates a 100-bed nonprofit hospi-
tal in Breckenridge, Minnesota, where it employs 248
employees. The maintenance unit sought by the Peti-
tioner consists of six "maintenance general" employ-
ees and one "painter/carpenter" in the Employer's
maintenance department.
In Allegheny General Hospital, 239 NLRB 872
(1978), the Board set forth in considerable detail its
reasons for concluding that hospital maintenance em-
ployees may constitute an appropriate bargaining
unit under the health care amendments to the Act.
The Board also indicated that the standard for deter-
mining the appropriateness of such a unit is the tradi-
tional community-of-interest test of American Cyana-
mid Company. 2 See Allegheny General Hospital, Supra.
In our opinion, the application of this standard to the
record in this case warrants the establishment of a
separate bargaining unit limited to the Employer's
maintenance department.
These employees were described as "boiler-maintenance employees" at
the heanng.
2 131 NLRB 909 (1961); see also The Long Island College Hospital, 239
NLRB 1135(1978).
The Employer's seven maintenance department
employees are exclusively supervised and trained by
the chief engineer. They are separately headquartered
in the boilerroom and nearby workshop in the west
wing of the hospital. They tend sophisticated boiler
equipment and are responsible for insuring the effec-
tiveness of the hospital's heating and cooling systems.
They also repair equipment, conduct a program of
preventive maintenance throughout the hospital, and
perform other varied tasks.
Although maintenance employees spend most of
their time performing maintenance tasks throughout
the hospital, state law restricts both the time and the
distance they may be absent from the boilerroom.
Constant monitoring is shared by three maintenance
employees on each of the two day shifts. The one
employee on the night shift may not be absent from
the boilerroom for more than 15 minutes. Moreover,
state law requires that at least one maintenance em-
ployee have a grade A boiler license, and the Em-
ployer requires that the other maintenance employees
have or acquire a grade B boiler license.
Both service and maintenance employees share a
number of basic working conditions and benefits such
as insurance coverage, pensions, sick leave, and pro-
bationary period. However, maintenance employees
are more highly paid than service employees. The
lowest wage rate for maintenance employees exceeds
the top rate for dietary employees and ward clerks.
The highest wage rate for maintenance employees
substantially exceeds the comparable rate for all
other service classifications.
As a result of their maintenance work throughout
the hospital, maintenance employees have frequent
daily contacts with service employees. Such contacts
do not, however, constitute integration of the Em-
ployer's service and maintenance operations but re-
sult from the "repair request form" system in opera-
tion at the hospital. Thus, in responding to a request
for repairs, maintenance employees might check with
service employees about the particular repair job.
Simple repairs are done on the spot; more compli-
cated repairs are done in the workshop. Whatever
maintenance tasks are performed by service employ-
ees involve unskilled work and are incidental to their
primary activity.
During the last two decades, few employees have
transferred from the service departments into the
maintenance department. Transfers within the service
departments are common. The Employer does not
permit temporary transfers to the maintenance de-
partment. Permanent transferees must serve another
probationary period in the maintenance department.
Under the circumstances detailed above, we find
that the maintenance employees share a community
of interest sufficiently separate and distinct from the
241 NLRB No. 124
799
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
broader community of interest which they share with
service employees as to warrant their representation
as a separate bargaining unit. In so concluding, we
note particularly that the maintenance employees
sought by the Petitioner are established in a separate
department having independent supervision. These
employees perform varied maintenance work for the
hospital, exercising the particular skills required by
this function. State law requires at least one mainte-
nance employee to possess a boiler operation license,
and, as it happens, almost all are licensed here. Also,
maintenance employees are paid at a higher wage
rate than service employees. Furthermore, in the ex-
ercise of this function there is minimal interchange
and functional integration between maintenance em-
ployees and service employees.
Accordingly, we find, contrary to the Regional Di-
rector, and for the reasons set forth in Allegheny Gen-
eral Hospital, supra, that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
All maintenance employees employed by the Em-
ployer at its Breckenridge, Minnesota, hospital, ex-
cluding all other employees, and supervisors as de-
fined by the Act.
[Direction of Election3 omitted from publication.]
MEMBER PENELLO, dissenting:
I cannot find appropriate the unit requested by Pe-
titioner.
I dissented from the majority's decision in Alle-
gheny General Hospital, 239 NLRB 872 (1978), to ap-
ply exclusively traditional community-of-interest cri-
teria in judging the appropriateness of bargaining
units, including units limited to maintenance employ-
ees, in health care institutions. I reasoned that using
only the standard of unit determination followed in
industrial plants would ignore the explicit directive of
Congress to limit the number of bargaining units in
health care facilities. 4 I therefore concluded separate
representation, apart from all professional or all non-
professional employees, should be accorded groups of
health care employees only where it is shown that
they possess an exceptionally high degree of commu-
nity of interest among themselves. Respecting mainte-
nance units in particular, I quoted in my Allegheny
dissent from my concurring opinion in St. Vincent's
Hospital, 223 NLRB 638, 639-640 (1976), where I de-
scribed the circumstances under which such a unit
may be granted:
[A] craft maintenance unit may be appropriate
3 [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.]
4 S. Rept. 93-766, 93d Cong. 2d Ses. 5 (1974), "Legislative History of the
Coverage of Nonprofit Hospitals Under the National Labor Relations Act.
1974" (hereinafter Leg. Hist.) at 12: H. Rept. 93-1501, 93d Cong. 2d sess. 6
7 (1974). Leg. Hist., supra at 274-275.
when, viewed in light of all the criteria tradition-
ally considered in determining the appropriate-
ness of maintenance units generally, its establish-
ment does not conflict with the congressional
mandate against proliferation of bargaining units
in the health care industry. This standard, which
is a more rigid one than is applied in other indus-
tries, can be met when the unit sought . . . is
composed of licensed craftsmen engaged in tra-
ditional craft work, which is performed in a sepa-
rate and distinct location apart from other em-
ployees in the health care facility. Normally,
such employees do not perform other services
throughout the health care facility ... and there
is, at most, minimal transfer or interchange to
and from the craft unit.
The pertinent facts in this case show that the em-
ployees in the petitioned-for unit fail to satisfy the
foregoing standard for a separate bargaining unit.
There are seven employees in the proposed unit; six
are classified as "maintenance general" and one as a
"painter/carpenter." Although it is true that these
employees are licensed, perform some skilled tasks,5
and have a workshop near the boiler area, it is also
true-and far more significant-that they spend the
vast majority of their time doing routine maintenance
work requiring only handyman skills and that they
perform this routine work in various areas throughout
the hospital, often coming into contact, and even
working with, other nonprofessional employees.
Thus, the usual duties of the maintenance workers
include repairing walls, beds, and doors; hanging
doors; removing trash; tending lawns, shrubs, trees,
and flowerbeds; removing snow; running errands
using the Employer's vehicles; performing general
maintenance on vehicles; making rounds of the build-
ing to insure its security; and assisting in restraining
disoriented patients. Further, while maintenance em-
ployees receive somewhat higher wages than other
nonprofessionals, all such employees are entitled to
the same fringe benefits, including holidays, sick
leave, life insurance, disability insurance, vacation,
education reimbursement, group hospitalization, and
pension. In addition, all employees share the same
cafeteria and lounge and constantly come into con-
tact with one another in these areas.
In sum, the evidence adduced at the hearing dis-
closes that the employees in the unit sought perform
largely unskilled work throughout the hospital, com-
ing into contact with, and often working with, other
nonprofessionals, with whom they share identical
fringe benefits and working conditions. Such a unit,
in my view, is not justified in a health care facility.
I Monitoring high-pressure boilers is their major skilled responsibility.
800