Good Samaritan Home for the Aged

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 198 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Good Samaritan Hospital, a/k/a' Good Samaritan
Home for the Aged and Building Service Employ-
ees Union Local 50 , affiliated with Service Employ-
ees International Union , AFL-CIO,' Petitioner and
Drexel Home, Inc. Service Employees Internation-
al Union , AFL-CIO California Nurses' Association
American Nurses' Association , Intervenors' Case
14-RC-61 10
August 27, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND
JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Karl A.
Sauber of the National Labor Relations Board. Follow-
ing the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, the case was transferred to the Board for
decision. Briefs have been filed by the Employer,
Petitioner, Intervenors Service Employees Internation-
al Union, AFL-CIO, California Nurses' Association,
and American Nurses' Association, and by the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations and the American Association of
Homes for the Aging as amid curiae.'
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is a private, church-related, chari-
table, nonprofit, 215-bed institution licensed by the
State of Missouri as a practical nursing home, and
by the City of St. Louis as a home for the aged.
It is affiliated with, but not controlled by, the United
Church of Christ, and offers domiciliary and skilled
nursing care services to both paying and charity resi-
dents who are drawn almost exclusively from the
St. Louis area, and who have met the Employer's
admission requirements that they be at least 70 years
of age, ambulatory, and in good health for their
The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing
Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing
Intervenors herein intervened on the basis of their substantial interest
in the Board's review of the policy issue of whether the Board should
assert jurisdiction over nonprofit nursing homes and related facilities
Requests for oral argument are hereby denied, as the record and
briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties and
amid curiae
age. Its medical staff consists of one physician who
is on 24-hour call and who visits the Employer several
times weekly. Its skilled nursing care services are
provided on a continuous basis in a 32-bed section
of its facility under the supervision of registered nurses,
licensed practical nurses, and other personnel normally
associated with such extended care facilities. This
section also is qualified under Medicare as an extended
care facility, and Medicare payments are made directly
or indirectly to the Employer during a resident's
confinement to this section. Inasmuch as the Employer
is not a vendor under the Medicaid program,' it
does not participate therein directly, but instead is
paid an undisclosed amount by such of its 42 residents
eligible under the program as have utilized the
Employer's medical and nursing services.
During 1968, the Employer grossed approximately
$568,000 in resident charges, including $92,000 in
payments from various agencies for charity patients,
and, from all sources, earned total revenues exceeding
$892,000. Of the $568,000 received in resident charges,
approximately $111,000, or about 20 percent, was
earned by its nursing care section through various
sources, including medicare payments. During this
same period, its direct and indirect purchases of goods
and supplies from outside the State of Missouri
approximated $16,000.
The Employer urges the Board to decline to assert
jurisdiction over it because, it contends, its nonprofit
religiously affiliated operation is noncommercial in
nature, and because it is not "truly a nursing home."
We find no merit in these contentions, all of which
previously have been raised, considered, and rejected
in Drexel Home, Inc., 182 NLRB No. 151.
We determined, in Drexel, wherein jurisdiction was
asserted over a nonprofit health-care operation func-
tioning as an extended care facility, that inasmuch
as the operations of nonprofit extended care facilities
are analogous to, and substantially affect commerce
in the same manner as, similar proprietary health-
care facilities,6 an employer's nonprofit status does
not provide a proper ground on which to decline
to assert jurisdiction over such an operation. This
conclusion is fully applicable to the Employer's extend-
ed care facility which clearly falls within the category
over which jurisdiction was asserted in Drexel' and
which, by virtue of its direct and indirect purchases
and its participation in the nationally oriented medi-
' A public assistance welfare program which provides certain medical
benefits to medically indigent persons regardless age
` See University Nursing Home, Inc, 168 NLRB No 53, wherein
jurisdiction was asserted over for-profit nursing home and related facilities
' "An establishment with permanent facilities that include inpatient
beds, and with medical services , including continuous nursing services,
to provide treatment to patients who require inpatient care but who
do not require hospital services "
185 NLRB No. 86
GOOD SAMARITAN HOME FOR THE AGED
care program, exerts a similar and substantial impact
on commerce which is not affected significantly by
its nonprofit status, its religious affiliation, or its
title.
Accordingly, as the Employer receives in excess
of $100,000 in gross revenues per annum, we find
that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction over the Employer's extended care
facility.'
2. Petitioner claims to represent certain of the
Employer's employees.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain of the Employer's employ-
ees within the meaning of Section 9 (c)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of "all employ-
ees . . . excluding office clerical and professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act." The Employer agrees basically with the forego-
ing unit and, by stipulation, the parties agreed to
exclude also, as supervisors, the Employer' s adminis-
trator , assistant administrator , director of nurse serv-
ices, the supervisor of both housekeeping and food
management departments, two of the Employer's five
licensed practical nurses, and, as professional employ-
ees, the Employer's three registered nurses.
Each of the two licensed practical nurses (LPNs)
stipulated to be excluded are in charge of a work
shift where they direct the work of three or four
nurses aides . The remaining LPNs stipulated to be
199
included in the unit "are not permitted under the
Medicare licensing to be Charge Nurses."
Therefore, we find, in accord with the agreement
of the parties and in the absence of affirmative evidence
to the contrary, that the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purpos-
es of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
All employees of the Employer at its St. Louis,
Missouri, location, excluding the administrator,
assistant administrator, director of nurse services,
the supervisor of both housekeeping and food
management departments , registered nurses, such
licensed practical nurses as are designated as,
and carry out the duties of, charge nurses, office
clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Drexel Home, Inc, supra, See also Bethany Home For The Aged,
185 NLRB No 85 , a case companion to this proceeding
' in order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity
to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right
to vote , all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters
and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them
Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, NL R B v Wyman-Gordon
Company 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an
election eligibility, list containing the names and addresses of all the
eligible voters must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director
for Region 14 within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction
of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available to all
parties to the election No extension of time to file the list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting
aside the election whenever proper objections are filed