Garden City Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 4, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 778 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Garden City Hospital (Osteopathic) and Local 547, A-
B-C, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFI,-CIO. Case 7 CA 14669
September 4, 1979
SUPPI.EMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHIY
On June 2, 1978, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order' in the above-
entitled proceeding granting the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment and ordering Re-
spondent to bargain with the Union as the certified
bargaining representative of a unit of all its mainte-
nance department employees. On October 26, 1978,
the parties were advised that the Board had decided,
sua sponle, to reconsider its decision, having taken
such action in view of recent challenges to its findings
that maintenance units are appropriate in the health
care industry. See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. West Suburban
Hospital, 570 F.2d 213 (7th Cir. 1978).
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.
We hereby affirm our previous decision.
In the underlying representation proceeding the
Regional Director, inter alia, found appropriate a unit
of "all maintenance department employees" with the
usual exclusions. Respondent thereafter filed with the
Board a request for review which was denied. In its
request and in its opposition to the Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment Respondent argues that a unit lim-
ited to maintenance employees is inappropriate, and
that the sole appropriate unit is an overall unit of its
service and maintenance employees. In support of
this contention Respondent cites, inter alia, Riverside
Methodist Hospital, 223 NLRB 1084 (1976), empha-
sizing "the Congressional admonition against prolif-
eration of bargaining units in the health care indus-
try."
In Allegheny General HospitaP we explained at
length why the congressional mandate against unit
proliferation in health care institutions does not pre-
clude the Board from finding units composed exclu-
sively of maintenance employees to be appropriate in
these facilities. There we carefully reviewed the legis-
lative history of the 1974 health care amendments to
the Act as well as Board unit determinations in the
field since that time and concluded that application of
236 NLRB 652 (1978).
'239 NLRB 872 (1978).
our traditional community-of-interest criteria in mak-
ing unit determinations is consistent with the congres-
sional intent of the legislation. Thus, the Board held
that in determining the appropriateness of a separate
maintenance unit we would continue to apply the tra-
ditional test for such units which includes considering
such factors as mutuality of interest in wages, bene-
fits, and working conditions: commonality of skills
and supervision: frequency of contact with other em-
ployees; lack of interchange and functional integra-
tion: and area practice and patterns of bargaining.'
Applying our traditional community-of-interest cri-
teria to the facts in this case we find that the test has
been met. Maintenance unit employees share com-
mon supervision, have a separate maintenance re-
porting area, and experience no regular or temporary
interchange with nonmaintenance employees. Fur-
ther, many of the maintenance employees have exten-
sive backgrounds in their job classifications and are
highly skilled in their respective areas of specializa-
tion. For example, the electrician had 6 years of train-
ing as such and qualifies as a journeyman. The car-
penter is an acknowledged journeyman. Two of the
boiler operators are licensed and the third had 4 years
of military service experience as a boiler room opera-
tor. The electronics technician had experience as a
radio operator on oceanographic ships.4
The maintenance reporting area is located in the
basement of the hospital and, although the timeclock
outside the boiler room in this area is punched by
maintenance, housekeeping, and dietary employees,
maintenance department employees have their own
locker area and cleanup area. The assistant building
superintendent directly supervises all maintenance
department employees although they perform their
work tasks throughout the hospital.
Nonmaintenance employees rarely work beside
maintenance employees; however, there have been a
few transfers from housekeeping to maintenance.
These transfers have only been into entry level posi-
tions, and there have been no transfers from mainte-
nance to other departments. The maintenance depart-
ment maintains its own promotional progression,
with maintenance helper being the entry level posi-
tion. While there are no educational requirements for
entry level positions, and no licenses or journeyman's
cards are required for any of the maintenance catego-
See The Long Island College Hospital, 239 NLRB 1135 (1978). and River-
side Methodist Hospital. 241 NLRB 1183 (1979).
4 We agree with the Regional Director that the electronics technician is
not a technical employee. Thus. as found by the Regional Director and
shown by the record. his work consists of routine testing and repair of elec-
tronic equipment, and his training and experience are not so highly special-
ized as to qualify him as a technical employee. In any event. since he is
supervised by the supervisor of the maintenance department and performs
general maintenance 15 percent of his working time, we find that he should
be included in the maintenance unit regardless of his status as a technical or
nontechnical employee.
244 NLRB No. 108
778
(;ARDEN CITY HOSPITAL (OS1 IOPAI HIC)
ries, as stated above, many of the maintenance em-
ployees have extensive backgrounds in their job clas-
sifications and are highly skilled in their respective
areas of specialization. Furthermore, even though the
same employment benefits and work policies apply to
all hourly rated employees, maintenance department
employees are concentrated in higher pay grades than
those of most of the service employee classifications.
Finally, the Regional Director fiund that the practice
in the metropolitan Detroit area favors separate
maintenance units.
Based on the factors noted above we find that the
maintenance unit employees share a separate com-
munity of interest. and that the petitioned for unit is
appropriate. In doing so we recognize, as Respondent
argues, that there are no educational or licensing re-
quirements for maintenance employees. However,
Respondent has, in fact, acknowledged the skills of
these employees by virtue of their concentration in
the higher pay grades. We further recognize that
maintenance employees may share identical benefits
and working conditions with nonunit employees, that
perhaps some nonunit employees have comparable
wages and skills, and that there have been a few
transfers from service to entry level positions in main-
tenance. Nevertheless, on balance these factors are
outweighed by those above which show that the
maintenance department employees share a sufficient
separate and distinct community of interest among
themselves as to warrant their being found by us to
comprise a separate bargaining unit.
On the basis of the foregoing we reaffirm our deci-
sion that the following certified unit is appropriate:
All maintenance department employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its facility located at
6245 Inkster Rd., Garden City, Michigan: but
excluding all office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, confidential employees, techni-
cal employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.'
Accordingly. we hereby reaffirm the conclusions of
law and Order in our initial Decision in this case.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby reaffirms its original Decision and
Order in this proceeding and orders that the Respon-
dent, Garden City Hospital (Osteopathic), Garden
City, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs. shall take the action set forth in the Board's
Decision and Order (236 NLRB 652).
MEMBER JENKINS, concurring:
I concur in the result.
As noted in our original decision, the parties stipulated to exclude all
office clerical emplo)ees, professional emplo)ees. confidential emploees
technical employees. guards. and supervisors from any appropriate unit The
parties also stipulated. inrer alia, that Assistant Building Superintendent Wil-
bert Earl Daniels is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. and the
Regional Director so found. In addition. the electronics technician is in-
cluded in the unit (See fn 4. ripr )
779