Fresno Community Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 521 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
Fresno Community Hospital and Stationary Engineers
Local 39, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 32-RC-340
March 28, 1979
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO,
MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On June 28, 1978, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 32 issued a Decision and Order dismissing the
petition in the above-entitled proceeding. The Peti-
tioner, which already represented the Employer's en-
gineering department employees, sought a separate
unit composed of the Employer's maintenance de-
partment and electronics department employees. The
Regional Director found the petitioned-for unit inap-
propriate on the grounds that the maintenance and
electronics employees did not share a community of
interest sufficiently distinct from the community of
interest they shared with service employees as to war-
rant their separate representation. Also, the Regional
Director noted that the petitioned-for unit would be a
separate maintenance unit, the establishment of
which contributed to proliferation of hospital bar-
gaining units proscribed by congressional directive.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for re-
view alleging that the Regional Director erred in fail-
ing to find the petitioned-for unit appropriate. The
Employer filed an opposition asserting that the Re-
gional Director's finding was correct. On August 18,
1978, the National Labor Relations Board by tele-
graphic order granted the Petitioner's request for re-
view. Subsequently, the Employer filed a brief restat-
ing its position.
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:
In Allegheny General Hospital, 239 NLRB 872
(1978), the Board, after reviewing the legislative his-
tory underlying the health care amendments to the
Act and the Board's unit determinations in this area,
set forth in considerable detail its reasons for conclud-
ing that hospital maintenance employees may consti-
tute an appropriate bargaining unit. Furthermore, in
making this determination, a majority of the Board
stated that it will continue to rely on the traditional
community-of-interest test, as established in Ameri-
can Cyanamid Company, 131 NLRB 909 (1961). See
Allegheny General Hospital, supra.
The Employer operates a nonprofit hospital in
Fresno, California. The hospital employs approxi-
mately 1,700 persons in 100 departments. The engi-
neering department, already represented by the Peti-
tioner, has approximately 15 persons: I supervisor, I
chief engineer, I assistant chief engineer, 6 engineers,
5 engineer apprentices, and a secretarial position,
which is currently vacant. The electronics depart-
ment, which the Petitioner now seeks to represent,
has approximately 14 persons: I supervisor, I work-
ing supervisor, I electrician, 1 biomedical technician,
I electronics technician, 4 apprentice technicians, I
apprentice electrician, 3 maintenance helpers, and I
clerk. The maintenance department, also currently
sought by the Petitioner, has approximately 19 per-
sons: I supervisor, 1 working supervisor, 3 painters, I
maintenance shop person, 5 maintenance mechanics,
6 maintenance helpers, 1 gardener, and I gardener's
helper.
The engineering, electronics, and maintenance em-
ployees are a distinct administrative grouping of em-
ployees apart from other service employees. They are
organized in three departments which are adminis-
tered as a single entity, plant operations, a subdivi-
sion of general services. Each of the three depart-
ments has its own supervisory structure. Department
heads are responsible for final recommendations con-
cerning hiring, evaluations, merit increases, disci-
pline, discharges, timecards, vacation scheduling, as-
signments, etc. Currently, the director of general
services oversees the departmental supervision, be-
cause the position of plant operations manager is va-
cant. However, it is anticipated that the three depart-
ment heads will report to the manager. There is
minimal supervision of plant operations employees by
other department heads, with the exception of the
biomedical technician assigned to surgery.
The three plant operations departments have loca-
tions throughout the Employer's facility, but engi-
neering and maintenance have offices and shops in
the basement of the hospital's principal building. The
engineering department is responsible for the physical
operation of the plant, its air-conditioning system,
sewers, pumps, water systems, and disposal systems.
The maintenance department repairs walls and
equipment, executes painting work, and disposes of
trash. The electronics department maintains, repairs,
checks, and updates all pieces of electrical and elec-
tronic equipment. The Employer contracts out all
major maintenance and repair work.
In the performance of their functions, the plant op-
erations employees exercise a variety of skills. The
engineering department has an apprenticeship pro-
gram leading to journeyman status. Electronics em-
ployees use complex testing equipment in their shop,
e.g., signal generators, oscilloscopes, meters, and spe-
241 NLRB No. 73
521
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cial testers for television sets and safety equipment.
One employee is primarily responsible for the sophis-
ticated equipment in the intensive care, respiratory
care, and coronary care units. Another employee re-
pairs and installs electronic equipment. Another in-
stalls electrical circuits. The maintenance department
has shops for machine, carpentry, and painting tasks.
Equipment used includes a table saw, joiner, band-
saw, machine lathe, drill press, and arc welder. One
employee is responsible for welding jobs. The depart-
ment supervisor seeks journeyman painting skill in
prospective employees, who perform a variety of
tasks in addition to painting, such as papering walls,
applying vinyl covers, and patching. Other employees
perform carpentry work, making small cabinets and
completing small upholstery jobs. In addition, the
maintenance department refurbished the hospital's
five-story building. Even the plant operations em-
ployees who handle trash perform a task requiring
some degree of skill. The record indicates that the
Employer transferred this function from housekeep-
ing to maintenance because improper feeding was
causing major breakdowns in the equipment. Now
the Employer requires that maintenance employees
receive training in proper usage of the equipment.
The plant operations employees interchange with
one another. Maintenance employees assist the engi-
neering employees in routine plumbing. Electronics
employees use maintenance shop equipment virtually
every day. Engineering employees sometimes perform
electrical work, e.g., they installed the circuit for an
ice machine. However, interchange between plant op-
erations and service employees is minimal. Service
employees do not use the special electronics depart-
ment equipment, and only one rehabilitation em-
ployee uses the shop equipment commonly used by
both electronics and maintenance employees. More-
over, those instances where plant operations employ-
ees perform functions in common with service em-
ployees are incidental to the primary activity of the
respective employees, involving either emergency
situations (flooding, loading) or the least skilled tasks
(cleaning, moving furniture). Furthermore, while
there is substantial contact between the plant opera-
tions employees and the service employees, there is
little integration of their work functions. Plant opera-
tions employees are required to move around the fa-
cility to monitor equipment and execute repairs on
the spot according to the hospital's work order sys-
tem. When working on a joint task, each group of
employees performs its respective function. For ex-
ample, in order to refurbish patients' rooms, house-
keeping employees remove drapes, linen, and cubicle
tracks; electronics employees remove television sets,
monitors, and electric lights; maintenance employees
patch and paint. In addition, it appears that transfers
from the service departments to the plant operations
departments are minimal. Since 1972, the mainte-
nance department has received one employee from
each of the two other plant operations departments
and only five employees from other departments,
three of whom were involved with the transfer of
trash handling from housekeeping to maintenance.
The employees in the plant operations division are
subject to centralized personnel policies and share
common fringe benefits with service employees.
There is no record evidence concerning the respective
pay scales of the plant operations employees on the
one hand and the service employees on the other
hand. However, we note that engineering employees
appear to be relatively highly paid, receiving approxi-
mately $7 per hour.
Under the circumstances detailed above, and for
the reasons set forth in Allegheny General Hospital,
supra, we find that the engineering, electronics, and
maintenance employees share a community of inter-
est sufficiently separate and distinct from the broader
community of interest which they share with service
employees to warrant their representation as a sepa-
rate bargaining unit. In so concluding we note partic-
ularly that these employees are established in three
departments comprising the separate subdivision of
plant operations, with its independent supervision.
The plant operations employees perform varied and
typical maintenance work for the hospital, exercising
the particular skills required by this function. Futher-
more, in the performance of their duties, there is
minimal interchange and functional integration be-
tween plant operations employees and service em-
ployees.' As the Petitioner has indicated that it "in
effect seeks to enlarge" its engineering department
unit by the addition of the two related departments of
electronics and maintenance employees, we shall di-
rect a self-determination election among the peti-
tioned-for employees so that they will be given an
opportunity to express their desires with respect to
being included with the already-represented engineer-
ing department in a single bargaining unit.2 Should a
majority of the voting group express a desire to be
represented by the Petitioner, in our view, a com-
bined unit of engineering, maintenance, and electron-
ics department employees would constitute an appro-
priate unit and would not contravene the
congressional policy against union proliferation of
hospital bargaining units. We therefore direct an elec-
tion in the following voting group:
All electronics and maintenance department em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its Fresno,
See also Long Island College Hospital, 239 NLRB 1135 (1978) (supple-
menting 228 NLRB 83).
2 In its brief in support of its request for review, Petitioner has indicated its
willingness to participate in an election directed in any unit.
522
FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
California, hospital; excluding all other employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the
Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group
cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken
to have indicated their desire to constitute a part of
the existing unit currently represented by the Peti-
tioner, and the Petitioner may bargain for such em-
ployees as part of that unit. If a majority of them vote
against the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire to remain outside the existing unit,
and the Regional Director will issue a Certification of
Results of Election to that effect.
[Direction of Election omitted from publication.]3
MEMBER PENEI.IO, dissenting:
For the reasons expressed in my concurring opin-
ion in St. Vincent's Hospital4 and my dissenting opin-
ion in Allegheny General Hospital, supra. I dissent
from my colleagues' direction of an election in a vot-
ing group composed of the Employer's electronics
and maintenance employees.
In my concurring opinion in St. Iincents Hospital,
I indicated:
[A] craft maintenance unit may be appropriate
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
[Erxcelior footnote omittled from publication.]
4223 NLRB 638 (1976)
mandate against proliferation of bargaining units
in the health care industry. [Footnote omitted.]
This standard, which is a more rigid one than is
applied in other industries, can be met when the
unit sought . . . is composed of licensed crafts-
men engaged in traditional craft work, which is
performed in a separate and distinct location
apart from other employees in the health care
facility. Normally, such employees do not per-
form other services throughout the health care
facility ... and there is, at most, minimal transfer
or interchange to and from the craft unit.5
The facts set forth in the majority opinion herein
clearly demonstrate that the petitioned-for employees
do not meet the above-stated standard. I note, in par-
ticular, that there appears to be no requirement that
any of the employees involved be licensed or regis-
tered, and while some exhibit craft-like skills, others
possess only minimal skills. In addition, the peti-
tioned-for employees perform services throughout the
facility, rather than in a separate and distinct loca-
tion. As a result, they come into regular contact with
the other nonprofessional employees and often work
in conjunction with the housekeeping employees in
performing their duties. Thus, I find that the peti-
tioned-for employees do not share a community of
interest sufficiently distinct from that of the service
employees to warrant separate representation. Ac-
cordingly, I would dismiss the petition.
223 NL.RB at 639 640.
523