Hebrew Rehabiltation Ceneter

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1977

230 N.L.R.B. 255 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

HEBREW REHABILITATION CENTER
Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for the Aged and Local
877, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-14785
June 17, 1977
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officers Joseph
Griffin, Robert D. McGrath, and Joseph C. Barry of
the National Labor Relations Board. Thereafter, the
Regional Director for Region I transferred the case
to the Board for decision.
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, having duly considered the Hearing
Officers' rulings made at the hearing, finds that they
are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the
Board finds:
1. Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for the Aged
(hereinafter called the Employer or the Center) is a
health care institution operating as a center for the
care of aged people. According to the stipulation of
the parties, the Employer has a gross annual volume
in excess of $250,000 a year and is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act. According-
ly, we find it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The parties have stipulated and we find that
Local 877, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called Petitioner), is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. A question concerning representation exists
regarding the representation of certain employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer, a 725-bed facility consisting of
approximately 25 departments, performs all of the
functions that go with providing a home for over 700
aged residents. There is no history of collective
bargaining for any of the Employer's employees.
Petitioner seeks to represent a bargaining unit
limited to approximately 23 maintenance employees
in approximately 12 different job classifications in
I The Jewish Hospital Association of Cincinnati d/b/a Jewish Hospital of
Cincinnati, 223 NLRB 614 (1976).
230 NLRB No. 35
the maintenance department. Petitioner contends
that the employees in the unit sought constitute a
readily identifiable group based on skills, wages, etc.,
thereby warranting separate representation.
The Employer contends that the maintenance
department employees in the unit sought do not
possess a community of interest sufficiently separate
and distinct from the service employees and that
therefore the only appropriate unit is an overall
service and maintenance unit. It contends that such
an overall unit is necessary because the Center
attempts to avoid the idea of institutionalization in
providing its residents a final home which requires a
cohesive homogeneous work force with greater
flexibility and mobility than may be present in a
general acute hospital.
In unit determinations, the Board has traditionally
looked to such factors as mutuality of interests in
wages and hours; commonality of supervision; skills
and functions; frequency of contact with other
employees; lack of interchange and functional
integration; and area practice and patterns of
bargaining.' The congressional admonition against
proliferation of bargaining units in the health care
industry does not preclude the appropriateness of a
maintenance unit.2 Here, for the reasons set forth
below, we find that the application of these tradition-
al standards indicates that the maintenance employ-
ees possess a sufficiently separate community of
interest to justify their own unit.
The maintenance department (also called the
engineering and maintenance department) is headed
by a departmental director who is accountable for
the separate budget of the maintenance department.
Directly responsible to this director are supervisors
for the firemen, the maintenance men, and the
elevator operators. The supervisors, who possess
considerable authority, not only hire but determine
starting pay.
According to Respondent's records, the mainte-
nance department consists of approximately 4
firemen, 5 maintenance mechanics C-A, 6 mainte-
nance mechanics C-B, I electrician C-A, one
electrician C-B, I electrical safety specialist, I head
painter, I painter, I carpenter, I plumber, I plumb-
er's helper, 10 elevator operators, and a lead
mechanic classification which does not appear to be
filled.
The record establishes that the employees in the
maintenance department, with the clear exception of
2 Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati, supra, St. Francis Hospital-Medical
Center, 223 NLRB 1451 (1976).
255
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the elevator operators, are more highly skilled than
those in the larger service group. 3 According to the
Employer's job descriptions, the firemen, electri-
cians, and plumber must all hold licenses. Although
not required, licenses are also held by one of the
mechanics; four or five employees who have pipefit-
ter licenses; a head painter who has a rigger license,
and two maintenance mechanics who have fireman
licenses. Even in seeking to hire weekend mainte-
nance mechanics, the Employer requires experience
with basic carpentry, electrical, and plumbing skills
and emphasizes in its advertisements that the
maintenance mechanic position is "not a housekeep-
ing position." Consistent with the Employer's high
standards for entry into the maintenance department
(other than for elevator operators), there has been
insignificant transfer between employees in the unit
sought and those outside the unit.
The employees in the unit sought are paid wages
commensurate with their higher skills and, accord-
ingly, are concentrated in the upper pay grades
unlike the service employees who the Employer
contends must be included in the unit.4 They are
headquartered in a separate section of the building
and wear distinct uniforms. Although, with the
exception of the four firemen, they work throughout
the Center, they do not work jointly with service and
other Center employees. Instead, their contact, which
is generally limited to ascertaining what maintenance
task is required, is not sufficient to characterize their
positions as being functionally or operationally
integrated with those of other employees in the
Center.5 The maintenance employees are supervised
3 There is no evidence concerning employees in the housekeeping
department since all housekeeping functions are performed by employees
employed by an independent contractor.
4 The elevator operators, who are not alleged to possess superior skills,
are among the lowest paid employees of the Employer.
I Sinai Hospital of Delroil, Inc., 226 NLRB 425 (1976).
only by maintenance department supervisors, who
do not supervise anyone outside their department.
In our view, the requested employees constitute an
appropriate maintenance unit.6 In finding the unit
sought appropriate, we rely particularly on the
maintenance employees' lack of functional and
operational integration with other employees; their
generally higher skills and experience and corres-
pondingly higher wage rates; and their supervision
by a separate supervisory hierarchy.7
Although the elevator operators are also adminis-
tratively classified in the maintenance department, it
is clear that the elevator operators do not do
maintenance work, do not possess maintenance
skills, do not receive similar wages, and do not
experience substantial contact or interchange with
other maintenance employees. Therefore, we will not
include the elevator operators in the maintenance
unit.
In conclusion, we find that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act: 8
All maintenance department employees em-
ployed by the Employer, excluding elevator
operators, office clerical employees, guards, su-
pervisors, and all other employees employed by
the Employer.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
6 St. Francis Hospital. supra.
' We note that the Employer subcontracts the entire housekeeping
operation to an independent contractor.
8 It appears that there is a secretary in the maintenance department
whose unit placement is not clearly provided for. Accordingly, we direct
that the secretary be permitted to vote by challenged ballot.
256