Methodist Hospital of Sacramento, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 1509 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO, INC. 1509
Methodist Hospital of Sacramento, Inc.' and Califor-
nia Association for Medical Laboratory Technology,
Engineers and Scientists of California (MEBA,
AFL-CIO), Petitioner.' Case 20-RC-12389
May 21, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Earl D.
Brand of the National Labor Relations Board. On
January 10, 1975, the Regional Director for Region
20 issued a Decision and Direction 'of Election in
which he found appropriate a bargaining unit con-
sisting solely of medical laboratory technologists.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, a request for review of
the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of
Election was filed by the Employer, contending that
the Regional Director erred in directing an election
in a unit restricted to medical laboratory technolo-
gists and that the medical laboratory technologist
should be included in the same unit as other profes-
sional employees of the Employer.
On May 16, 1975, the National Labor Relations
Board by telegraphic order granted the request for
review and stayed the election pending a decision on
review.
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 considered the entire record in this
case, including the brief filed by the Employer, and
makes the following findings:
The Employer is a nonprofit, church-related acute
health care institution located in Sacramento, Cali-
fornia.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit confined to
nine medical laboratory technologists employed by
the Employer. The record shows, however, that not-
withstanding that they work primarily in the medical
laboratory, the medical laboratory technologists
share an identifiable community of interest with
other professional employees at the Employer's facil-
ity. They have wage scales and working conditions
similar to those of all other professionals. Like other
professionals employed by the Employer, the medi-
cal laboratory technologists are required to hold a
baccalaureate degree in their respective specialties
and their undergraduate education is supplemented
by additional training and licensure by the State of
California. A medical laboratory technologist I may
be hired by the Employer with no experience, while a
medical laboratory technoligist II, must have a year
of experience outside of the Employer's facility be-
fore being hired.
In our opinion, the petitioned-for medical labora-
tory technologists herein possess characteristics simi-
lar to those possessed by the medical laboratory tech-
nologists who were separately sought in Mercy Hospi-
tals of Sacramento, Inc., 217 NLRB 765 (1975), and
we find, therefore, for the reasons stated in Mercy,
that the petitioned-for separate unit of medical labo-
ratory technologists is inappropriate.
However, as an alternative, Petitioner has ex-
pressed a willingness to participate in an election in a
larger professional unit. The Employer contends that
the only appropriate unit of professional employees
should include all professional employees employed
by it, including medical laboratory technologists,
pharmacists, physical therapists, and registered nurs-
es, all of which catergories the parties stipulated to be
professionals. The Intervenor contends that an all-
professional unit is inappropriate and that registered
nurses are entitled to separate representation, but ex-
presses a desire to participate in an election in any
unit or units of professionals. The records show that
the Employer employs 9 medical technologists, 4
pharmacists, I physical therapist, and 54 registered
nurses.' None of the Employer's employees is cur-
rently represented by any labor organization.
As we recognized in Mercy, supra, a unit consisting
of all professional employees, excluding registered
nurses, is appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. Consistent with the Petitioner's expressed
willingness to participate in an election in a large
professional unit, as an alternative to one confined
only to medical laboratory technologists as sought in
its petition, we shall direct an election in a unit of the
Employer's professional employees, excluding the
registered nurses, for which the Petitioner has made
an adequate showing of interest .4
As we also found in Mercy, registered nurses are
3 No party claims that there are doctors who should be included in the
unit.
4 The Act does not require that the unit for bargaining be the only appro-
priate unit, or the ultimate unit, or the most appropriate unit; the Act re-
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. quires only that the unit be "appropriate," that is, appropriate to insure to
2 Hospital and Institutional Workers Union, Local 250, Service Employ- employees in each case "the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaran-
ees International Union, AFL-CIO, was granted intervention at the hear- teed by this Act." See, e.g., Morand Brothers Beverage Co., 91 NLRB 409
ing. (1950), enfd. 190 F.2d 576 (C.A. 7, 1951).
223 NLRB No. 186
1510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
entitled to be represented for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining in a separate unit, as claimed by the
Intervenor. However, the Intervenor has not made
the showing of interest necessary to support the di-
rection of an election in such a separate unit herein.
Nor has it made a showing which would entitle it to
participate in the election which we are directing.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find
that the following employees of the Employer consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All professional employees employed by the
Employer at its Sacramento, California, facility,
including medical laboratory technologists,
pharmacists, and physical therapists; excluding
registered nurses, all other employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]