Kirksville College Of Osteopathic Medicine, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1985

274 N.L.R.B. 794 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine, Inc.'
and Local 50, Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Cases 17-
RC-9392, 17-RC-9393, and 17-RC-9394
11 March 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
Upon petitions filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held
on 19 and 20 January and 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, and 24
February 1982 before Hearing Officer Richard
Auslander Following the hearing and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 17 transferred this case to the Board
for decision. The Employer and the Petitioner filed
briefs.
The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings,
finding them free from prejudicial error. On the
entire record, the Board makes the following find-
ings.
1. The parties stipulated that the Employer is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act. We find that it will effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
2. Local 50, Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, CLC is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Employer is a Missouri nonprofit corpo-
ration engaged in the provision of healthcare serv-
ices, medical education, and medical research at
various locations in Missouri. The Petitioner filed
three petitions seeking to represent separate units
composed respectively of all technical, all profes-
sional, and all service and maintenance employees
employed by an entity denominated by the Peti-
tioner as the "Kirksville Osteopathic Health
Center." Although the petitions were amended at
the hearing to reflect the correct name of the Em-
ployer, the Petitioner adheres to its position that
the Health Center is a functionally distinct segment
of the Employer, "in effect an unincorporated sub-
sidiary of the College," and contends that only the
Health Center is a healthcare institution within the
meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act The Petitioner
further urges that employees of the Health Center
share a community of interest separate from that of
College employees, and thus that only Health
Center employees, and not those of the College,
should be included in the three units. The Employ-
er argues that it is a single, integrated healthcare
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
institution, all the employees of which share a com-
munity of interest such that only two units, com-
posed respectively of all professional and all non-
professional employees, can be found appropriate.
The College is principally located in Kirksville,
Missouri. On its main campus are located the
Kirksville Osteopathic Hospital complex, housing
an acute care hospital, an outpatient clinic, a clini-
cal laboratory, basic science research laboratories,
a library, a medical records department, and relat-
ed medical services departments. Also located
within the complex are classrooms, meeting rooms,
and dining facilities. Several other buildings situat-
ed on the main campus are devoted to additional
research facilities, clinics, maintenance and boiler-
room facilities, and student housing. An administra-
tion building is located approximately two blocks
away from the main campus. The Laughlin Osteo-
pathic Hospital and Laughlin Osteopathic Clinic,
both of which merged with the Employer in 1980,
are located approximately a mile and a half from
the main campus. The Employer also operates 13
rural and satellite outpatient clinics located within
a 60-mile radius of Kirksville in northeastern Mis-
souri.
In order to comply with certain accreditation re-
quirements, the Health Center has its own board of
governors and bylaws. The same individuals who
comprise the board of governors of the Health
Center, however, also make up the Employer's
board of trustees. The Employer operates on a
single, centralized budget and accounting system.
The teaching process takes place throughout the
Employer's complex, and faculty offices are locat-
ed in several areas, including those adjacent to pa-
tient care areas Most physicians on the faculty
treat patients at the Health Center, and the Health
Center's medical director also is the director of
medical education. The Employer's vice president
also serves as the administrator of the Health
Center.
In Albany Medical College, 239 NLRB 853
(1978), the Board held that the college and the hos-
pital associated with it were separable entities, and
that only the hospital was a healthcare institution
within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
The Board accordingly found appropriate a unit of
maintenance employees employed by the college,
excluding all employees who worked at the hospi-
tal. In so doing the Board relied in substantial part
on its finding that the medical college's "primary
purpose-it's raison d'etre-is to train physicians
and to promote research and not to provide medi-
cal services to the community." 239 NLRB at 854.
After careful consideration, we have concluded
that the approach taken in Albany Medical College
274 NLRB No. 121
KIRKSVILLE COLLEGE
may lead to results which are inconsistent with
congressional intent revealed in the legislative his-
tory of the 1974 healthcare amendments, which
conferred upon the Board jurisdiction over nonpro-
priety hospitals. A primary focus of the legislative
debates surrounding the 1974 amendments was the
need to avoid interruptions in the delivery of
healthcare services. Toward this end Congress pro-
vided in Section 8(g) that special strike notice pro-
visions would be applicable at healthcare institu-
tions, and cautioned the Board not to allow undue
proliferation of bargaining units in this industry.
Congress further indicated that the term "health-
care institution" should be construed broadly.2
The instant case illustrates the need for such an
expansive reading. The Petitioner contends that the
Employer's facilities and its employees can be di-
vided into "college" and "hospital" categories, and
that only hospital employees should be included in
the unit or units found appropriate. The Employer
offered extensive evidence, however, to establish
the high degree to which the College and the
Health Center, although legally distinct entities at
least for purposes of accreditation, are functionally
integrated. Thus, the Petitioner would include
housekeeping employees, although in addition to
cleaning hospital areas these employees clean class-
rooms, basic science laboratories, and the library,
all of which the Petitioner contends are "college"
facilities. The Petitioner would exclude the audio-
visual department employees, yet these individuals
also maintain and repair the nurse call system, pa-
tient television sets , and the pocket paging system
in the hospital areas and perform numerous other
duties directly involving the hospitals and clinics.
Also, the Petitioner would include the centralized
plant engineering and maintenance department em-
ployees, but these individuals also maintain boilers
at the administration and student housing buildings
and repair classroom and basic science equipment.
The Petitioner would include the centralized pur-
chasing department, yet it purchases supplies for
the entire institution, including the classrooms and
2 93 Cong, 2d Sess, Legislative History of the Coverage of Nonprofit
Hospitals Under the National Labor Relations Act. 1974, at 110 (Comm
Print 1974)
795
administrative services. The switchboard operators
would be included by the Petitioner, although they
transfer calls not only throughout the hospitals, but
also to the library, basic science laboratories, and
the administrative offices which the Petitioner con-
tends are part of the College. Similar patterns
emerge throughout the Employer's work force.
Thus, employees in several departments serve
both the College and the hospitals in such an inte-
grated manner that their functions cannot be as-
signed to one or the other, and it is impossible to
draw a line between them. Moreover, because a
strike among any group of employees we might
find to be working primarily at the College rather
than at the hospitals would inevitably have a pro-
found and direct effect upon the functioning of the
hospitals, policy considerations dictate that the line
should not be drawn. In sum, no rational basis has
been shown upon which we can distinguish "col-
lege" from "hospital" employees at this highly inte-
grated facility,3 and we must reject the Petitioner's
position to this extent.
Although we have found that the petitioned-for
units are inappropriate, because the Petitioner indi-
cated a willingness to represent the Employer's em-
ployees in any units found appropriate by the
Board, we will not dismiss the petitions. Instead,
we shall remand this proceeding for the Regional
Director's further consideration consistent with the
Decision and Order in St. Francis Hospital, 271
NLRB 948 (1984), including, if necessary, a re-
opening of the record and the issuance of a supple-
mental decision by the Regional Director, if appro-
priate.
ORDER
This case is remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 17 for further proceedings consistent
with this decision.
3 Accordingly, we overule Albany Medical College to the extent it
would require a different result
We are not holding that every medical school is a healthcare institu-
tion Rather , where, as here , the functions , administration , and work
force of a medical school and its affiliated hospital are so highly integrat-
ed that separating them for representation purposes would be impractical
and contrary to the policy considerations present in the healthcare field,
we will find the medical school to be a health care institution within the
meaning of the Act