Meharry Medical College

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 25, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 488 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Meharry Medical College' and Health Care Local
1308, affiliated with Laborers ' International Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 26-
RC-4950, 26-RC-4973,2 and 26-RC-4980
July 25, 1975
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consol-
idated hearing was held before Hearing Officer Ber-
nard G. Aronstam of the National Labor Relations
Board. Following the hearing and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Region-
al Director for Region 26, these cases were transfer-
red to the National Labor Relations Board for deci-
sion . Thereafter, the Employer filed a timely brief
which has been duly considered.
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.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer 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 general welfare corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Tennessee. It
is engaged in the academic and practical education
and training of medical doctors, dentists, and other
health care persons. In that capacity, the Employer is
engaged in the operation of a medical center com-
posed of a hospital, medical school, and neighbor-
hood mental health center providing general health
care services and facilities for the public.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer is a health care institution within the meaning
of Section 2(14) of the Act. The parties further stipu-
lated that the Employer's gross annual revenues ex-
ceed $1 million and that it annually purchases mate-
rials and supplies from outside the State of
Tennessee having value exceeding $50,000. Accord-
ingly, we find, in accordance with the parties' stipula-
i The names of the Employer and the Petitioner appear as amended at the
hearing.
2 Tennessee Nurses Association was granted intervention with respect to
the petition in Case 26-RC-4973, on the basis of a sufficient showing of
interest.
tion, that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction here-
in.
2. At issue is the Petitioner's status as a labor or-
ganization . The record establishes without contradic-
tion that the Petitioner is an organization in which
employees participate, and that it exists for the pur-
pose of bargaining with employers concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, and
working conditions. The Petitioner has a constitution
and bylaws, holds regular membership meetings, and
plans to hold a general election for officers. Accord-
ingly, based on the above evidence, we find that the
Petitioner, which claims to represent certain employ-
ees of the Employer, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.'
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the In-
tervenor is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner filed three separate petitions
seeking to represent three different units of employ-
ees at the Employer's medical complex.
In Case 26-RC-4950, the Petitioner seeks to repre-
sent all nonprofessional service and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer. The parties are in apparent
agreement as to the classifications to be included in
such nonprofessional service and maintenance unit.
Thus, at the hearing, the Petitioner amended its peti-
tioned-for unit description to include all full-time
and part-time nonprofessional service and mainte-
nance employees including LPN's, aides, assistants,
housekeeping and maintenance employees, laundry
workers, food service and dietary employees, medical
records clerks, technicians, social service aides, inter-
viewers, matrons, teaching aides, PBX operators, and
all nonbusiness office clerical employees 4 While the
Employer maintains generally that the only appropri-
ate unit of its employees should include "all nonfac-
ulty, nonprofessional, nonsupervisory employees"
3 Alto Plastics Manufacturing Corporation, 136 NLRB 850 (1962).
This unit description is identical to a unit description previously stipu-
lated by the Employer and the Petitioner Thus, the petition in Case 26-
RC-4950 was filed on January 21, 1975. On February 14, 1975, the Employ-
er and the Petitioner entered into a Stipulation for Certification Upon Con-
sent Election in a unit consisting of all of the employee classifications
described above and an election was scheduled However, on February 19
and 27, 1975, the Petitioner filed separate petitions in Cases 26-RC-4973
and 26-RC-4980 seeking units of registered nurses and clerks, respectively.
Thereafter , the Employer filed a motion to withdraw from the stipulation in
Case 26-RC-4950 The Petitioner then offered to withdraw the latter two
petitions if the Employer would agree to the stipulation in the former case
The Acting Regional Director decided to consolidate all three cases for
hearing and canceled the election in Case 26-RC-4950.
MEHARRY MEDICAL COLLEGE 489
employed by it, the Employer indicated that it would
include in such unit all of the classifications sought
by the Petitioner and, additionally, would include
therein inhalation and cobalt therapists, pharmacy
aides, and all clerical employees. The Petitioner took
no position on the unit placement of these additional
classifications and leaves the determination of the
appropriate unit to the Board.
In Mount Airy Foundation d/b/a Mt. Airy Psychiat-
ric Center, 217 NLRB No. 137 (1975), the Board de-
cided that nonprofessional service and maintenance
employees constitute an appropriate bargaining unit
of employees in the health care industry and we find,
for the reasons stated therein, that the petitioned-for
unit in the instant case of nonprofessional service
and maintenance employees is appropriate.5 We fur-
ther find, consistent with the agreement of the par-
ties, that the above unit should include the following
employee classifications : LPN IS 6 aides, assistants,
housekeeping employees, maintenance employees,
linenroom employees,' food service and dietary em-
ployees, technicians, social service aides, interview-
ers, matrons, teaching aides, PBX operators, and
medical record clerks.
The Employer contends that inhalation and col-
balt therapists and pharmacy aides should be includ-
ed in the unit. The record establishes that the inhala-
tion and colbalt therapists work in the nursing
department. Unlike all of the Employer's other thera-
pists, who are required to hold academic degrees in
their respective specialties and exercise independent
judgment in the performance of their duties, the
inhalation and colbalt therapists receive on-the-job
training for their particular duties, are not required
to possess any degree or licensing qualifications, and
perform mainly routine tasks.' The pharmacy aides
work in the pharmacy, carrying prescriptions and
S See also Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento, Inc, 217 NLRB No. 131 (1975):
see St . Catherine 's Hospital of Dominican Sisters of Kenosha, Wisconsin, Inc.,
217 NLRB No. 133 (1975); and Newington Children 's Hospital, 2L7 NLRB
No. 134 ( 1975). Member Penello would also find the petitioned -for unit to
be appropriate based on his view that all nonprofessionals in a health care
facility, with the exception of business office clericals, must be included in
one unit for collective -bargaining purposes . See his separate concurring
opinion in Mt. Airy, supra.
6 We shall give effect to the parties' agreement to include LPN's in the
above nonprofessional service and maintenance bargaining unit. The inclu-
sion of LPN 's in such a unit does not contravene the provisions or purposes
of the Act or established Board policy : See Otis Hospital, Inc., 219 NLRB
No. 55. Member Penello would include LPN 's in an all nonprofessional
service and maintenance bargaining units even absent a stipulation by the
parties to do so. See In . 14 in Otis Hospital, supra, and his dissenting opinion
in St. Catherine 's Hospital of Dominican Sisters of Kenosha, Wisconsin, supra,
and his concurring opinion in Mt, Airy, supra.
7 Referred to by the Petitioner as laundry employees
8 For the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion in Nathan and Mi-
riam Barnert Memorial Hospital Association d/b/a Barnert Memorial Hospi-
tal Center, 217 NLRB No. 132 ( 1975), and in his separate concurring opin-
ion in Mt. Airy, supra, Member Penello would also include the inhalation
and colbalt therapists in the unit herein.
medications between the nursing service employees
and the pharmacists The record also establishes that
the above employees are nonprofessionals and that
they have substantial contact with and share com-
mon hours, wage scales, fringe benefits, grievance
procedure, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment with the service and maintenance employ-
ees. Accordingly, we shall include the inhalation and
colbalt therapists and pharmacy aides in the nonpro-
fessional service and maintenance unit.
The Petitioner would include in the nonprofession-
al service and maintenance unit only nonbusiness of-
fice clerical employees, whereas the Employer would
include all clerical employees. For the reasons stated
in Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento, Inc., supra, and
Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, 217 NLRB No. 135
(1975), we shall not include business office clerical
employees in the service and maintenance unit.
Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, we
find that the petitioned-for unit of all nonprofession-
al service and maintenance employees including
LPN's, aides, assistants, housekeeping employees,
maintenance employees, linenroom employees, food
service and dietary employees, technicians, inhala-
tion and cobalt therapists, pharmacy aides, social
service aides, interviewers, matrons, teaching aides,
PBX operators, and nonbusiness office clerical em-
ployees constitutes a unit appropriate for collective
bargaining within the meaning of the Act and we
shall direct an election therein.
In Case 26-RC-4973, the Petitioner seeks to repre-
sent a unit composed of all registered nurses em-
ployed by the Employer, excluding all other profes-
sional employees. The Intervenor, Tennessee Nurses
Association, likewise contends that registered nurses
constitute a separate appropriate professional bar-
gaining unit. On the other hand, the Employer's posi-
tion is that the only appropriate professional unit
should include all of its professional employees. For
the reasons stated in Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento,
Inc., supra, establishing that registered nurses have a
community of interest separate and apart from other
professional employees, we find that the petitioned-
for unit of registered nurses is appropriate.
The Employer employs several graduate nurses.
Graduate nurses are nurses who have graduated
from accredited nursing schools and have either tak-
en or are about to take the registration examination
required by the State to become licensed as regis-
tered nurses . Until such time as they receive notifica-
tion they have passed the examination, the graduate
nurses work under state permits performing essen-
tially the same functions and duties as the registered
nurses, under the supervision of the director of nurs-
ing, except for the handling of narcotics or as limited
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by law. Both the Employer and the Petitioner took
the position that graduate nurses should be included
in the bargaining unit with registered nurses, whereas
the Intervenor opposed their inclusion. By virtue of
the above evidence concerning the nature of the
training and working conditions of graduate nurses,
we shall, in agreement with the Employer and the
Petitioner, include graduate nurses in the registered
nurses' unit?
Graduate nurse technicians are nurses who have
graduated from foreign (nonaccredited) nursing
schools but have not yet taken the state boards to
become licensed as registered nurses. The State of
Tennessee does not give permits to foreign educated
nurses prior to postexamination licensing as regis-
tered nurses. While the uncontested testimony estab-
lishes that graduate nurse technicians are the "equiv-
alent to a graduate nurse," the record does not
establish whether or not the graduate nurse techni-
cians' work duties and responsibilities are identical to
those performed by graduate nurses. Nor does the
record establish the length of time that graduate
nurse technicians remain as such until they become
fully licensed as registered nurses. Accordingly, in
view of the inconclusiveness in the record concerning
the nature of the work performed by the graduate
nurse technicians, we shall permit the graduate nurse
technicians to vote subject to challenge.
The Employer contends that charge nurses are su-
pervisors within the meaning of the Act and that,
because all registered nurses serve as charge nurses at
one time or another, all registered nurses are supervi-
sors and are not entitled to be included in any em-
ployee bargaining unit. The Petitioner and Interve-
nor leave the determination of the unit placement of
charge nurses to the Board.
Charge nurses work in various "divisions" in the
nursing services department. All registered nurses
serve as charge nurses at one time or another on their
respective work shifts on a rotating basis for I day or
1 week. The record establishes that charge nurses are
responsible to "direct" the other employees on their
respective shifts, which include other registered nurs-
es, LPN's, aides, and assistants; however, this direc-
tion is limited to directing the performance of the
employees' normal work duties and responsibilities
and does not involve the exercise of a significant
amount of independent judgment by the charge
nurse . Thus, the record establishes that registered
nurses, while acting as charge nurses, continue to be
responsible for the performance of their regular nurs-
ing duties and continue to bear individual responsi-
bility for patient care. Moreover, all registered nurses
9 See Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento, Inc., supra
receive the same rate of pay regardless of whether or
not, or how long or how often, they serve as charge
nurses. Although the record shows that charge nurses
can excuse employees on their shifts, in cases of im-
mediate illness, charge nurses cannot grant time off
or excuse employees for any other reasons without
first clearing such matters with the clinical supervi-
sor. Nor does the record establish that charge nurses
can hire, fire, discipline, or effectively recommend
the hiring, firing, or disciplining of employees. The
charge nurse is required to report all disciplinary
problems to the clinical supervisor who has ultimate
divisional authority for such matters. In addition, the
clinical supervisors, whose supervisory status was sti-
pulated by the parties, have 24-hour responsibility
for the nursing service divisions, schedule working
days and hours for all employees in the nursing ser-
vice divisions, and assign registered nurses to act as
charge nurses.
Based on such evidence, it appears that charge
nurses do not exercise any real supervisory authority
on behalf of management over employees. Rather,
their duties are for the most part routine, involving
the general direction of employees in the perfor-
mance of their normal patient care duties and, as
such, the charge nurses function more in the nature
of lead persons. Even assuming that charge nurses
may exercise some supervisory authority, the fact
that they may do so only for a short period of time
and on a sporadic basis would not require their ex-
clusion from the unit. Accordingly, based on the evi-
dence discussed above, we find that charge nurses
are not supervisors within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act and we shall include them in the bar-
gaining unit.10
The parties refused to stipulate as to the supervi-
sory status of head nurses. The Employer claims that
"all R.N.'s serve as either head nurses or charge nurs-
es." The only evidence in the record concerning head
nurses is that their duties, functions, and responsibili-
ties are identical to those of charge nurses. In view of
such evidence and in view of our finding above that
charge nurses are not supervisors within the meaning
of the Act, we find, for the above-stated reasons, that
head nurses, like charge nurses, are not supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall
include the head nurses in the bargaining unit.
We conclude that a unit consisting of all registered
nurses, including graduate nurses, charge nurses, and
head nurses employed by the Employer, with the
normal statutory exclusions, and excluding all other
employees, is appropriate for the purposes of collec-
10 We note that the record indicates that some LPN's serve as charge
nurses on the same basis and under the same circumstances and conditions
as registered nurses. We find , for the reasons stated above , that LPN's who
serve as charge nurses are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
MEHARRY MEDICAL COLLEGE 491
tive bargaining and we shall direct an election there-
in.
In Case 26-RC-4980, the Petitioner seeks to repre-
sent in a separate bargaining unit all business office
clerical employees employed by the Employer. On
the other hand, the Employer would include all of its
clerical employees in the nonprofessional service and
maintenance unit . For the reasons stated in Mercy
Hospitals Sacramento, Inc., supra, and in Sisters of St.
Joseph of Peace, supra, we find that business office
clerical employees share a community of interest sep-
arate and apart from other clerical employees in
health care institutions whose work is more closely
related to the functions performed by employees in
the service and maintenance unit, and that such busi-
ness office clericals are entitled to be represented in a
separate bargaining unit.
The Employer contends that its approximately 55
administrative secretaries should be excluded from
the unit as confidential employees. The Petitioner
leaves the matter of the unit placement of adminis-
trative secretaries to the Board. The record shows
that administrative secretaries work for the
Employer's administrative assistants , who the parties
stipulated are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act, and whose duties are connected in some manner
with the formulation and implementation of the
Employer's labor relations policies. However, the
record does not definitively discuss the actual role
played by the administrative assistants in the formu-
lation or implementation of labor relations policy or
the specific duties performed by the administrative
secretaries which would warrant our finding them to
be confidential employees. See The B. F. Goodrich
Company, 115 NLRB 722 (1956). Accordingly, as we
are unable on the record before us to make a defini-
tive finding as to the confidential status of the ad-
ministrative secretaries , we shall permit them to vote
subject to challenge.
Accordingly , for the aforementioned reasons, we
find that a unit consisting of all business office cleri-
cal employees, excluding all other employees, is ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
and we shall direct an election therein.
Conclusion
Upon the entire record and for the aforementioned
reasons , we shall direct elections among employees in
the following units which we have found to be appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining with-
in the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
UNIT A
All full-time and regular part -time nonprofes-
sional service and maintenance employees of
Meharry Medical College , Nashville , Tennessee,
including LPN's, aides , assistants , housekeeping
employees, maintenance employees , linenroom
employees, food service and dietary employees,
technicians , inhalation and colbalt therapists,
pharmacy aides , social service aides, interview-
ers, matrons , teaching aides, PBX operators and
nonbusiness office clerical employees ; excluding
all professional employees , doctors and interns,
faculty members , students, business office cleri-
cal employees , guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
UNIT B
All registered nurses , including graduate nurs-
es, charge nurses, and head nurses employed by
Meharry Medical College , Nashville, Tennessee;
excluding all other employees , guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
UNIT C
All business office clerical employees em-
ployed by Meharry Medical College, Nashville,
Tennessee ; excluding all other employees, confi-
dential employees, guards - and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote om-
itted from publication.]