New York State Nurses Assn.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 849 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

THE NEW YORK STATE NURSES ASSN.
The New York State Nurses Association and Commu-
nications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case 3-RC-6957
September 30, 1977
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, 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 Officer Hobart
Corning. Following the hearing, and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedures, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of
the Regional Director for Region 3, this case was
transferred to the National Labor Relations Board
for decision. The Employer filed a brief in support of
its position.
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 has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
Employer's brief, the Board finds:
1. The Employer, The New York State Nurses
Association, is a nonprofit corporation organized
under the not-for-profit corporation law of the State
of New York. The membership is composed of
approximately 28,000 registered professional nurses,
or persons lawfully authorized to practice as a
registered professional nurse. With the exception of
approximately 250 members, all reside within the
State of New York.
The Employer's purposes as stated in its corpora-
tion certificate are to further the efficient care of the
sick and disabled and others requiring nursing
services; to advance the educational and professional
standards of nursing; to promote the educational and
professional advancement of nurses; to assist nurses
who are ill, disabled, destitute, or otherwise in need;
and to publish and disseminate information concern-
ing nurses and nursing. The Employer's activities are
organized under the following programs: nursing
education; nursing practice and service; legislation;
economic and general welfare; and organization
services.
' Cf. ('aliornia Medical Association, 223 NLRB 201. 202 (1976);
American National Red Cross, Districi of Columbia Chapter, 21 I NLRB 587
232 NLRB No. 136
Under the Employer's economic and general
welfare program it acts under both state law and the
National Labor Relations Act as collective-bargain-
ing representative for registered professional nurses
and individuals authorized by law to practice as
registered professional nurses. The Employer has
collective-bargaining agreements with approximately
120 employees in New York State.
During its past fiscal year the Employer collected
dues from its members of approximately $1 million,
almost all of which came from members residing
within the State of New York. In the same period,
the Employer paid approximately $19,500 in premi-
ums to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Northeastern
New York and Phoenix Mutual Insurance Company,
domiciled in the State of Connecticut, for health,
dental, and major medical and life insurance pro-
grams for its employees. The Employer also pays
approximately $30,000 annually to Connecticut
General Life Insurance Company of Hartford,
Connecticut, for pension benefits for those members
of the Employer who are representing it in collective-
bargaining units.
In addition, during its past fiscal year the Employer
paid approximately $46,000 for the printing of its
publications to printing companies located in New
York. The Employer stated at the hearing without
contradiction that the companies are engaged in
interstate commerce and that the Board has asserted
jurisdiction over their operations.
Although the Board has not established a jurisdic-
tional standard for associations such as the Employ-
er, we find it unnecessary to do so here. The parties
do not dispute any of the above jurisdictional facts,
and both the Employer and the Union have
requested the Board to assert jurisdiction. It is well
settled that an association's effect on commerce may
not be limited by its nonprofit status, its title, or its
professional service orientation. Significantly, we
note that the Employer here acts as a collective-
bargaining representative of registered nurses and
has negotiated approximately 120 collective-bargain-
ing contracts with various employers some of which
are employed within the meaning of the Act.
The Employer's annual gross revenue of members'
dues of around $1 million far exceeds any of the
dollar volume standards the Board would be likely to
apply and we have asserted jurisdiction over other
membership associations similar to the Employer
herein.' In these circumstances, we conclude that the
Employer's impact on commerce is significant and
warrants the Board asserting jurisdiction over it, and
that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to do
so.
( 1974): United Brotherhood o/ (Carpenters and Joiners o .4meria, ('arpentcrs
District Council of Western Pennsilvania, 195 NLRB 799. 800, 801 { 1972).
849
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
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 and the Employer agree on the
scope of, and unit placements in, the appropriate
unit, except for the status of five individuals
performing the jobs of plant manager, administrative
assistants I and II, and assistant programmer. As the
uncontroverted testimony in the record shows that
these individuals effectively participate in the hiring
of employees, possess the authority to discipline
employees, authorize overtime, grant time off,
evaluate employee performance, and use indepen-
dent judgment in assigning or directing the work of
employees, we find that they are supervisors within
the meaning of the Act and shall exclude them from
the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
of the Employer at its Albany, New York City, and
Buffalo, New York, offices constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All regular full-time and regular part-time admin-
istrative staff employed as administrative assis-
tants, secretaries, machine-operator trainees, key-
punch operators, multilith operators, clerks or
receptionists; excluding all program staff, mana-
gerial employees, confidential employees, watch-
men, guards, professional employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
850