National Health Laboratories, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1978

239 N.L.R.B. 213 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

NATIONAL HEALTH LABORATORIES. INC.
National Health Laboratories, Inc. and Local 804, De-
livery and Warehouse Employees, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America. Case 29-RC-4218
November 7. 1978
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MtMBRRS JFNKINS
AND PENtIll.)
On June 16, 1978, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 29 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found
appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit of all de-
livery employees (hereinafter referred to as drivers)
assigned to the Employer's Levittown, New York.
laboratory and rejected the Employer's contention
that the unit must also include laboratory techni-
cians, laboratory technologists, laboratory assistants,
accessions employees, stockroom employees. client
service employees, and sales service employees.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a
timely request for review of the Regional Director's
decision on the grounds, inter alia, that he made erro-
neous findings of fact and departed from officially
reported precedent. The Petitioner filed an opposi-
tion thereto.
By telegraphic order dated July) 17, 1978. the re-
quest for review was granted and the election stayed
pending 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 with respect to the issues under review and
makes the following findings:
The Employer provides clinical laboratory services
to physicians, hospitals, small laboratories, and clin-
ics at its Levittown, New York, facility. As indicated,
the Petitioner seeks to represent all delivery employ-
ees, approximately 20 in number. The Employer con-
tends that a unit of drivers is inappropriate and the
appropriate unit should include laboratory techni-
cians, laboratory technologists, laboratory assistants,
accessions employees, stockroom employees, client
services employees, and sales service employees.
The Employer's drivers are supervised by Dave
Zebrowski, who is responsible to Glen Gilchrist, the
Employer's operations manager. In their daily work,
drivers pick up specimens at the premises of the Em-
ployer's customers or clients, deliver the specimens to
the Levittown laboratory, unload the specimens and
bring them to the accession department area, pick up
laboratory reports, and deliver the laboratory reports
to the Employer's customers. Drivers also obtain
supplies and receive requests from customers, trans-
mit them to the laboratory, and make sure that the
supply orders are filled and delivered promptly.
Drivers handle telephone calls from other drivers
and from the Employer's customers and receive in-
formation and orders from customers. They cover
the desk in the distribution department and handle
the problems regarding distribution, in the absence
of the distribution department supervisor. In the
course of their daily work, the drivers spend I to 2
hours at the laboratory. 1-1/2 to 2 hours in physi-
cians' offices, and 4-1/2 to 5 hours driving the Em-
plover's vehicles. They drive regular passenger auto-
mobiles which are provided by the Employer.
Drivers are required only to have a standard New
York State driver's license. No other education or
training is required. Like all other employees, drivers
are subject to the same general rules, the same salary
system, and the same health insurance benefits, life
insurance benefits, sick leave benefits, and holiday
and vacation benefits.
While at the Levittown facility, drivers come into
contact and work regularly with employees in many
different job classifications. They come in contact
with accessioners. to whom they transfer laboratory
specimens, patients' medical histories, physicians' au-
thorizations, supply order forms, and verbal informa-
tion regarding specimen integrity. They also come in
contact with laboratory assistants, who prepare pack-
ages of specimens for drivers. The full-time labora-
tory assistant organizes the reports as they are being
completed and gives them to the various drivers.
Drivers come in contact with client service employ-
ees, with whom problems are discussed and resolved
concerning tardy or misplaced specimen results. Fi-
nally, drivers come into regular contact with tne
stockroom employees, who receive orders from the
drivers, prepare orders, deliver orders to the drivers'
area, and assist the drivers in the loading and un-
loading of trucks.
Each Saturday. stockroom employees perform the
drivers' function of making routine pickups and de-
liveries. A driver will also fill in for a stockroom em-
ployee when one is sick; this occurs about once a
month. Finally, one driver regularly fills in for absent
client service employees and handles incoming tele-
phone calls.
Consideration of all the relevant factors in the in-
stant proceeding demonstrates that the drivers
sought herein do not enjoy such a distinct commu-
213
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nity of interest as to warrant their separate represen-
tation.'
In reaching that conclusion we note that while the
drivers spend most of their time away from the labo-
ratory, they have frequent and varied work contacts
with other employees. Not only do drivers share
common benefits and conditions of employment, but
there is also an overlap of job functions and responsi-
bilities between drivers and other employees, as de-
scribed in more detail above.
Based on the foregoing, we find that a unit limited
to the Employer's drivers is too narrow in scope.
However, as the Petitioner at the hearing expressed
an interest in proceeding to an election in any broad-
er unit found appropriate, we shall determine which
of the classifications urged for inclusion by the Em-
ployer would constitute an appropriate unit.
The following classifications warrant discussion:
Accession employees. There are 20 employees in the
accession department. During their workday, acces-
sion employees unload the specimens which have
been picked up and delivered to the laboratory by
the drivers. They then receive, prepare, and transfer
the specimens to the laboratory area for testing. As
previously indicated, drivers transfer to the accession
employees patients' medical histories which accom-
pany the specimens, physicians' authorizations for
particular tests, supply order forms, and verbal infor-
mation regarding specimen integrity. No educational
training, job qualifications, or experience is required.
Based on the substantial integration and work con-
tact of accession employees with both drivers and
laboratory personnel, the accession employees shall
be included in the unit.
Stockroom employees: The two stockroom employ-
ees receive supply orders from the drivers, prepare
and deliver them to the drivers' area, where the latter
organize and prepare the orders for delivery, and as-
sist in the unloading of trucks delivering supplies to
the laboratory. Drivers have contact with supply em-
ployees on a daily basis and must make sure that
supply orders are correctly filled. No educational
training or experience is required for stockroom em-
ployees. When a stockroom employee is out sick,
which occurs about once a month, drivers will go in
and help fill the orders. The two stockroom employ-
ees are required to have a standard driver's license,
and on Saturdays they make routine pickups and de-
liveries in place of the regular drivers. Based on this
substantial work contact, integration, and overlap-
Damon Medical Laboratorl. Inc., 234 NLRB 333 and 387 (1978): Boston
Medical laboratory. Inc., 235 NLRB 1271 (1978). Contrary to the Regional
Director, we find these cases to be dispositive. That there was some degree
of common supervision in those cases, and separate supervision here. is
insufficient reason in our view to justify a different result in this case.
ping job functions, we shall include stockroom em-
ployees in the unit herein.
Client service employees. Four client service em-
ployees work in the client service department, deal-
ing with client problems. reporting the results to
clients, and receiving incoming physicians' telephone
calls. No educational training or experience is re-
quired for client service employees. Although these
employees spend 80 percent of their time in the client
service department, they also spend 20 percent of
their time in the laboratory discussing the driver's
problems, which involve specimens, results, and late
reports. Solving these problems requires going into
the laboratory to speak to laboratory personnel and
speaking to the drivers to obtain an answer. Stan-
dardized physician report forms routinely pass back
and forth between the drivers and the client service
employees. Since they have no specialized education
or training, and since they have regular contact with
other unit employees, we shall include them in the
unit.
Sales service employees: Four sales service employ-
ees work on the upper floor of the laboratory. In
their daily work, these employees, who wear ordinary
clothes, handle specimens and spend almost all of
their working time typing test results. They are in
daily contact with the laboratory personnel 10 or 15
percent of their working time in order to obtain more
data or answers to certain questions. There are no
educational requirements for sales service employees.
In view of their extensive contacts with other unit
employees, we shall include them in the unit.
Technologists and technicians: The Employer em-
ploys about 35 technicians and 25 technologists.
They perform essentially the same work, i.e., per-
forming laboratory tests such as Pap smears and
acidity content. Special college educational require-
ments and laboratory training are required of these
employees and they must meet educational standards
set by the State of New York and Medicare. Since
these employees perform work which is of a technical
nature involving the use of independent judgment
and requiring the exercise of specialized training, we
conclude that these technicians and technologists are
technical employees. Barnert Memorial Hospital Cen-
ter, 217 NLRB 775, 782, 783 (1975).
Laboratory assistants: There are seven full-time
laboratory assistants and one part-time laboratory
assistant. Two laboratory assistants handle labora-
tory worksheets and paperwork in the automated
chemistry department. Three laboratory assistants
work on Pap smears. Two laboratory assistants are
teletypewriter operators. There are no educational or
training requirements. We find therefore that these
employees are not technical employees. Litton Indus-
214
NATIONAL HEALTH LABORATORIES, INC.
tries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722
(1959). While there does not appear to be any regular
interchange between the laboratory assistants and
the drivers, the two laboratory assistants who handle
the teletypewriter prepare packages of specimens for
the drivers who deliver them to the airport. When the
reports are teletyped, the hand copy of the teletyped
report often is delivered personally to the customer
by the driver. The full-time laboratory assistant, who
handles the laboratory worksheets and paperwork,
organizes the reports as they are being completed
and gives them to the various drivers. We conclude,
therefore, that since they do not possess any special
educational or training skills and do come into daily
contact with other unit employees, we shall include
laboratory assistants in the unit.
The laboratory technologists and technicians, who
we have found are technical employees, work in the
same areas as the laboratory assistants, have frequent
and regular contacts with them, perform similar
functions to those of the laboratory assistants, have
substantially similar conditions of employment, and
are, in general, under the same supervision. In these
circumstances, and as their separate representation is
not sought, we shall include the laboratory technolo-
gists and technicians in the unit herein found appro-
priate. The Sheffield Corporation, 134 NLRB 1101
(1961); Hazelton Laboratories, Inc., 136 NLRB 1609,
1611 (1962).
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the fol-
lowing employees employed by the Employer at Na-
tional Health Laboratories, Inc., Levittown, New
York, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act:
All drivers, stockroom, accession, sales service,
and client service employees, laboratory assis-
tants and laboratory technologist and techni-
cians, excluding professional, managerial em-
ployees. guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.2
Accordingly, we hereby remand the case to the Re-
gional Director for the purpose of conducting an
election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll
period for determining eligibility shall be that ending
immediately before the date of issuance of this Deci-
sion on Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted from
publication.]
* As the unit found appropriate herein is larger than that requested. the
Petitioner is accorded a period of 10 days In which to suhmit the requisite
showing of interest to support an election herein In the event the Petitioner
does not wish to proceed with an election herein. it mav withdraw its petl-
tion without prejudice by notice to the Regional Director within 7 dass
from the date of this Deceision on Review
215