Ojai Valley Community Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 1354 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

1354 OJAl
Diego, d/b/a
and
-RC-42
9(c)
Visia I ~ c . , ~
1.
Diego,
$250,000,
$5,000
I hear~ng.
2(6)
2(2)
2(5)
(1)
organi~ation;~
Ventura
C o ~ n t y ) . ~ PEAVC's
infer
."
Wnder Sec. 2 ( 5 )
Sec. 2 ( 2 )
subdivibions Sec. 2(3)
Sec. 1 1
tlme
agreement*
VALLEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
National Medical Convalescent of San
Ojai Valley Community Hospital1 Public
Employees' Association of Ventura County, Pe-
titioner. Case 3 l 14
March 12, 1981

DECISION AND DIRECTION O F

ELECTION'

Upon a petition duly filed under Section of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Julia A.
Timmons of the National Labor Relations Board
on August 15, 24, and 31, 1978. Pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, and
by direction of the Regional Director for Region
31, this case was transferred to the National Labor
Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer and Petitioner filed briefs.
On March 30, 1979, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued its Supplemental Decision and
Order in Sierra Hospital, in which the
Board set forth its policy regarding conflict of in-
terest issues raised by the active participation in the
affairs of a labor organization by supervisors of the
employer with whom the labor organization seeks
to bargain, or of third parties. Inasmuch as these
issues had also been raised in the instant proceed-
ing, the Board, on May 25, 1979, issued an Order
remanding the case to the Regional Director for
further hearing on these issues in light of Sierra
Vista. Pursuant to the Board's Order, the additional
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Susan D.
Kunk on July 23, 24, and 25 and August 6, 1979.
Following the close of that hearing, the case was
again transferred to the Board for decision. The
Employer and Petitioner have both filed supple-
mental briefs.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officers'
rulings made at both hearings and finds that they
are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
The parties stipulated that the Employer, Na-
tional Medical Convalescent of San d/b/a
Ojai Valley Community Hospital, hereinafter re-
ferred to as the Employer or the Hospital, is a
California corporation engaged in the business of
operating an acute care hospital located in Ojai,
California. During the past calendar year, a repre-
sentative period, the Employer derived revenues
for its services in excess of and it pur-
chased goods valued in excess of directly
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the
241 NLRB 631.
254 NLRB No. 163
from sources located outside the State of Califor-
nia. The parties further stipulated that the Employ-
er is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended. Accordingly, we find that
the Employer is an employer within the meaning
of Section of the Act and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this
proceeding.
2. The Employer contends that Petitioner, Public
Employees' Association of Ventura County, herein-
after referred to as Petitioner or PEAVC, is not a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
of the Act. In support of this contention, the
Employer argues that: because Petitioner repre-
sents individuals who work for city or county enti-
ties in the state of California, neither the workers
which it represents nor the entities with which it
deals can be considered to be employees or em-
ployers, respectively, as contemplated by the statu-
tory definition of a labor and (2) Pe-
titioner's board of directors, which controls each
bargaining unit's contract negotiations, is com-
prised in substantial part of statutory supervisors.
We find no merit in the Employer's argument.
With respect to the Employer's first contention
the record reveals that the Petitioner operates
under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act4 which gave
California state, county, and municipal employees
collective-bargaining rights. PEAVC is an associ-
ation comprised of employees of political subdivi-
sions, public employees of a special interest area,
public employees otherwise associated together
professionally, private employee groups by approv-
al of PEAVC's board of directors, and retirees of
all the aforementioned groups within the bound-
aries of County, California (hereinafter the
constitution and bylaws pro-
vide that the association's purpose is, alia, "to
represent those employees for whom it has, or may
acquire, lawful authority to serve as majority rep-
resentative, in discussions and negotiations with
. . . any private employer whose employees are
members. . . Petitioner's executive director tes-
tified that the Employer's employees would receive
chapter or unit status within the association if Peti-
tioner were certified as their collective-bargaining
of the Act, a labor organization is by definition en
organization in which employees partictpate and which exists for the pur-
pose of dealing with employers. The term "employer" under of
the Act excludes states and political thereof. de-
fines "employee" as being limited to individuals who work for entities
within the statutory definition of an employer.
California Government 3500-35
At the of the first hearing, PEAVC had one collective-bargain-
ing agreement with the County covering I2 bargaining units and separate
bargaining with 14 cities or special districts in the County.
[UNITY
According1
2(5)
delegate/director
Ass~ciat ion.~
affiliate
~ a c a n t . ~
2(11)
Ven-
1
Filmore, 1
participation"
p re~en ted .~
unlts.
allilialed
ofiicers,
affiliate
oficers,
' delegate/director
' w~thout
affect~ng
Inc., We.rtern Baptirt Hospiral,
(1970).
PEAVC's
collective-
spokesperson,1°
l 1
suficient
bargaining.12
Em-
l a oFTers
that
1 Vista Inc.. wpm.
l2
OJAI VALLEY COMM HOSPITAL 1355
representative. y, as Petitioner does
not limit its membership to city, state, or municipal
employees and as it exists for the statutory pur-
poses, we find that Petitioner is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section of the Act.
The record also fails to verify the Employer's
contention that Petitioner's board of directors is
composed in substantial part of supervisors and
that the board of directors exerts strong influences
over the bargaining process. The executive authori-
ty of PEAVC is vested in a board of directors
which, according to the bylaws, is to be comprised
of a elected from each of the var-
ious chapters, affiliate chapters, and units of the
However, until such times as the
chapter, chapter, or unit has its representa-
tive formally installed on the board of directors, its
seat remains
The Employer claims that five directors possess
the indicia of supervisory authority set forth in sec-
tion of the Act. We note, however, that at
the time of the first hearing and according to an
exhibit submitted by Petitioner, 13 directors were
employed by the county of Ventura, 1 by the
tura Regional County Sanitation District, by the
city of and by the city of Thousand
Oaks. While these individuals may, in fact, possess
the indicia of supervisory authority, it is clear that
none of them is, nor could be, a supervisor within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. Therefore, we find no merit in this
aspect of the Employer's argument. Moreover,
even if these individuals were statutory supervisors,
it is undisputed that none of them is employed by
this Employer. In Sierra Vista, we noted that
"active by an employer's own super-
visors in the internal affairs of a labor organization
which seeks to bargain with that employer could
raise some doubt as to whether that labor organiza-
tion could deal with the employer at arm's length.
Since no director of PEAVC is a supervisor em-
ployed by the Employer, no conflict-of-interest
issue is
We further noted in Sierra Vista that the active
internal union participation of supervisors em-
ployed by a third party may present a conflict-of-
PEAVC functions through three separate and distinct groups:
chapters, and chapters. A unit is an appropriate bargaining unit
established by the Civil Service Commission. A chapter is similar to a
unit and elects its own but usually does not represent county em-
ployees. An chapter represents employees outside the County,
elects its own and establishes its own constitution.
Each has 1-5 votes depending on the number of
members he represents.
Units of any kind formal representation on the board of di-
rectors do occasionally send representatives to meetings to speak on
issues them.
See also Baptist Hospitals, d/b/a 246
NLRB 170
interest issue if a "demonstrated connection" is
shown between the employer of unit employees
and the employer of those supervisors. We have al-
ready determined that members of Petitioner's
board of directors are not supervisors within the
meaning of the Act. However, we shall, for the
purposes of this discussion only, assume that they
are supervisors. Yet, even this assumption does not
further the Employer's argument.
The record reveals that various chap-
ters, affiliate chapters, and units form their own
negotiating committees which in turn establish pro-
posed collective-bargaining packages. This process
varies, however, depending upon whether the
group represents county or noncounty employees.
Each county unit or chapter draws up
bargaining proposals as to matters that affect it in-
dividually, and with the assistance of PEAVC's ex-
ecutive director, Barry Hammit, who acts as chief
negotiates with the county. In
areas where mutual benefits are shared, such as
health insurance, the county chapters and units get
together and make a unified demand with Hammit
again acting as chief negotiator. The affiliated
chapters are more autonoumus, making their own
collective-bargaining decisions, doing their own
collective bargaining, and ratifying the contract
themselves. PEAVC assigns them a staff person
who assists in contract negotiations. Petitioner's
board of directors does not set policy nor does it
dictate the course which negotiations should take
at the local level and cannot impose its will on the
various bargaining committees.
As the foregoing demonstrates, the Employer
has failed to substantiate its contention that Peti-
tioner's board of directors is dominated by supervi-
sors and that the board of directors controls indi-
vidual bargaining unit's contract negotiations. As
we emphasized in Sierra Vista, the employer has a
heavy burden of showing actual or potential con-
flict of interest. The mere allegation of such con-
flict is not to sustain that ?burden, since
the Board emphasized that an employer must
adduce probative evidence demonstrating that su-
pervisory participation in a labor organization's in-
ternal affairs "presents a clear and present danger
of interference with the bargaining process" which
would serve to disqualify that labor organization
from Based on the foregoing, we find
that PEAVC is not disqualified because of an al-
leged conflict of interest from representing the
Hamrnit testified that he advice on such matters as bargaining
strategy and he takes his direction from the individual bargaining
committees.
Sierra Hospital.
Id. at 634.
1.156
ployer's
Yista
-13
Yista
9(b)(3) Act14
force15
9(b)(3).
9(b)(3)
Vlsisra.
organ~zatton IS v~rtually
status 2(5) Wsla,
Sierro conflict-of-inter-
est thc
employee\. alfairs
PEAVC's
wpervisors
In
l 4 Sec. 9(b)(3) find
ind~vidual
employer's Sec. 9(b)(3) al$o
afliliated organiration adm~ts
'" pol~ce
contracling
l 6
&
(1954),
market17
& ~ o m b ,
company
Lomb.l8
9(c)(l)
2(6)
(RNs),
(NAs).
RNs
(RNs,
NAs)
RNs
sometimes
' 7 Hosp~tal
' 8 Soccer Consriruenr
I317
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining with the Employer. Considering all the
circumstances, the Employer has failed to sustain
the burden required by us in Sierra of show-
ing that "there is a clear and present danger of a
conflict of interest which compromises [Petition-
er's] bargaining integrity . . . .
The Employer asserts that a further conflict of
interest exists in the instant case separate and apart
from the Sierra issue. Initially, the Employer
contends that Section of the prohibits
the representation by Petitioner of both the Ojai
police and the employees of the Employer.
The Employer argues that inasmuch as the Ojai
police are responsible for security problems at the
Hospital, they should be considered guards within
the meaning of Section Furthermore, the
Employer contends that Petitioner may not repre-
sent its employees because Petitioner represents su-
pervisors of Ventura County General Hospital, an
alleged competitor of the Employer.
We reject both of these arguments. At the
outset, the Ojai police are not guards within the
meaning of Section of the Act. They are
employed by the city of Ojai, and the only contact
they have with the Employer arises purely pursu-
ant to their municipal function of rendering assist-
ance when needed.' We also reject the Employ-
':' Id. at 635. The Employer also contends that Petitioner is not a stat-
utory labor organization since all of the Employer's nursing department
supervisors are eligible for membership in Petitioner. We find no merit in
this contention, for, as we stated in Sicrro "the mere presence of
supervisors in a labor irrelevant to determining
under Section of the Act." Sierra supra. 632.
The Employer argues that a further Vista-type
issue is presented by possibility that supervisors employed by
Ventura County General Hospital moy, through their representative to
Petitioner's board of directors, act against the interests of the Employer's
The Employer additionally argues that Petitioner's are
always subject to supervisory influence. since any of units
could at any time change its designated representative to the board of di-
rectors. The Employer asserts that under such uncertain circumstances
Petitioner should be barred from representing the Employer's employees.
However. inasmuch as no supervitors employed by Ventura County Gen-
eral Hospital presently sit on Petitioner's hoard of directors and since no
of other employers presently do so, we find the possibility
that they may do so the future and then exert some influence on the
bargaining process to be entirely too remote and speculative, and, hence.
lacking in merit.
states that the Board shall not appropriate any bar-
gaining unit whtch includes both employees and "any em-
ployed as a guard to enforce against employees and other persons rules
to protect property of the employer or to protect the safety of persons on
the premises." prohibits the Board from cer-
tifying any labor organization "as the representative of employees in a
bargaining unit of guards if such organization admits to membership, or is
directly or indirectly with an which to
membership, employees other than guards."
The Ojai department is an affiliate chapter of PEAVC, its
agent being the Ojai Police Officers* Association. The Ojai
police chapter has not had a representative on Petitioner's board of direc-
tors for the past 4 years.
Anna Jacobs, director of nursing at the Hospital, testified that inci-
dents requiring police assistance occur only about once a month and usu-
ally involve patients who become belligerent and present a threat to staff.
er's claim that the Employer and Ventura County
General Hospital stand in a competitive relation-
ship. We find that the Employer's reliance on
Bausch Lomb Optical Company, 108 NLRB 1555
is misplaced. The Employer asserts that the
two hospitals compete for nurses in an extremely
tight job and that the two compete for
employees through wage and benefit packages and
differences between the two hospitals in desired
working conditions. As a result, claims the Em-
ployer, the shortage of nurses places a great strain
on the supervisors of both hospitals and that the su-
pervisors at Ventura Hospital, who are represented
by Petitioner, have an interest in assuring them-
selves of an adequate supply of competent nurses,
even if to the Employer's detriment.
In Bausch the union representing the
employer's employees established a to
engage in the same business as the employer and
was thus in direct competition with the employer.
In our opinion, the situation presented by this Em-
ployer is not the kind of direct competition with
which the Board was concerned in Bausch &
Accordingly, we find that Petitioner is
not disqualified on conflict-of-interest grounds from
representing the Employer's employees.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section
and Section . . and (7) of the Act. . .
4. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit consisting
of all nursing staff employees employed by the Em-
ployer at its Ojai, California, facility, excluding su-
pervisors. Such a unit would include registered .
nurses licensed vocational nurses (LVNs),
and nurse attendants At the hearing, Peti-
tioner expressed its willingness to proceed to an
election in a smaller unit, specifically, one com-
posed of only.
Throughout these proceedings, the Employer has
declined to take a position regarding what would
constitute an appropriate unit and has limited its ar-
guments to the inappropriateness of the unit or
units sought by Petitioner. In this regard, the Em-
ployer's basic position is that the three categories
of employees within the nursing department
LVNs, and each possess basic skill levels and
perform jobs that are distinctly separate from those
of the others. In particular, the Employer asserts
that the are professional employees while the
visitors, or other patients. She further testified that such prob-
lems are handled directly by Hospital personnel.
The Hospital and Ventura County General are 18 miles
apart.
See The North American League and irs Member
Clubs, 236 NLRB (1978).
OJAl
NAs
RNs,
2(11)
RNs
RNs
RNs
RNs
RNs
NAs. RNs
RNs
RNs
NAs.
RNs,
Instp-
er ?a1
1
NAs
NAs
01. ..,e-job
NAs
NAs,
petitioned-
RNs, NAs
RNs em-
ployees,lg NAs
status.20
RNs, NAs
RNs
employees.21
RNs
industry.22
RNs,
NAs.
RNs.
l 9 Sacrammto, Inc., 17 Pres-
byterran
20
~Vathan ,Mirram Barnert Hosprtal Associatron, Bar-
nert Memorral 780-781 (1975).
NAs
NAs 11
determ~ne techntcal
2 1 The MedlcaI I267
2 2
1357 VALLEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
LVNs and are not. In addition, the Employer
contends that employees in each nursing depart-
ment category share a community of interest with
employees outside the nursing department who
work at the same skill level. Accordingly, the Em-
ployer argues that a unit limited to nursing depart-
ment employees is inappropriate because employ-
ees within that department do not share a sufficient
community of interest with each other to constitute
a single unit and because such a unit would im-
properly exclude employees outside the nursing de-
partment who have interests and working condi-
tions similar to employees included in the unit. Fi-
nally, the Employer contends that, if an election is
directed, the specialty unit supervisors must be ex-
cluded from any unit found appropriate.
For the reasons set forth below, we agree with
the Employer that a unit comprised of all nursing
department employees is inappropriate. We find,
however, that Petitioner's requested alternative
unit, made up only of is appropriate. In addi-
tion, we find that the specialty unit supervisors are
supervisors within the meaning of Section of
the Act and, accordingly, we shall exclude them
from the unit found appropriate herein.
The record reveals that are required to
graduate from an accredited school of nursing, pass
a state-administered exam and be licensed by the
State. must also attend periodic training ses-
sions which are optional for other employees. A
review of their job functions reveals that are
responsible for the continuous, overall nursing care
of patients. In this regard, are involved in all
aspects of disease prevention, and the administra-
tion of medicine and therapy as well as remedial
and restorative processes. Only are authorized
to receive and implement the full range of doctors'
orders. They also interpret doctors' orders to sub-
ordinate staff and generally oversee and direct
LVNs and In addition, coordinate and
direct the administration of therapeutic and techni-
cal services to patients by other hospital employ-
ees. The are responsible for monitoring pa-
tient reactions to various treatments and can initiate
or engage in other curative or rehabilitative patient
treatments. In performing their various job func-
tions, exercise a substantial degree of inde-
pendent judgment.
LVNs are required to have completed 1 year of
clinical and theoretical training at the college level
and must be certified by the State. LVNs can ad-
minister medicine by hypodermic injection, with-
draw blood, and start or superimpose intraveneous
fluids. An LVN also oversees and directs
Unlike however, LVNs do not exercise a
high degree of independent judgment. For exam-
ple, in implementing doctors' orders, LVNs are
limited to the administration of medication. They
do not have authority to initiate other forms of pa-
tient treatment. Indeed, state law requires that
LVNs perform their jobs under the supervision of
either a physician or an RN. In addition, an LVN
may not, merely through experience, become an
RN. an LVN must comply with the addi-
tional and certification requirements to
which subject.
subject to any state certification and
need no, . any educational requirements.
receive training and are responsible for
such tasks as bedmaking, bathing patients, and posi-
tioning patients for comfort. can take patients'
temperatures and pulse rates but may not adminis-
ter medicine or otherwise receive and implement
doctors' orders. in short, perform routine,
ministerial duties with respect to patients who are
recuperating normally.
Based on the foregoing, we find the
for unit consisting of LVNs, and to be
inappropriate. The record clearly establishes, and
the parties agree, that the are professional
while neither the LVNs nor the
enjoy such professional Thus, even assum-
ing auguendo that the LVNs, and pos-
sessed a sufficient community of interest to consti-
tute a single, appropriate unit, inclusion of the pro-
fessional would be prohibited unless they are
given an opportunity to vote as to whether they
wish to be included in a unit with nonprofessional
Within such an election framework,
we note that if, for example, the were to vote
"no" on being included in a unit with nonprofes-
sionals, but voted "yes" on representation, while
LVNs and Nas also voted "yes" on representation,
two separate units would result. We have held that
such a result is contrary to the congressional admo-
nition against proliferation of bargaining units in
the health care Accordingly, we reject
Petitioner's request for a unit of LVNs, and
As noted above, Petitioner alternatively has re-
quested a unit limited to The Employer, con-
sistent with its overall position, asserts that such a
unit is inappropriate because it excludes other pro-
Mercy Hospital of 2 NLRB 765 (1975); The
Medical Center. 218 NLRB 1266 (1975).
The Employer contends that the LVNs are technical employees,
see. and Memorial d / b / a
Hospital Center, 217 NLRB 775, and that
the are "regular employees." In view of our finding herein that
LVNs and are not professional employees, we deem unnecessary
to whether they are or regular employees.
Presbyterian Center. 218 NLRB 1266, (1965).
Id. at 1267.
1358
RNs.
R N s . ~ ~
RNs.
(1980), "[rlegistered
RNs
RNs
RNs
RNs
RNs
RNs
RNs
contrast,24
RNs.
23
24
RNs
nonprofess~onals.
RNs
duration.25
RNs
divideh
care/coronary
supervisors
issue.26
2(11)
9(b)
2 5 d/b /a
(1981).
inter alia, RNs
!hat RNs
the
RNs
appropriate
the extent
between RNs
Jenk~ns Mount
'b st~pulated,
superviwrr d~rec tor
p.m.
nlght
DECISIONS O F NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fessional employees outside the department of nurs-
ing who share a community of interest with the
It specifically argues that the pharmacists and
laboratory technologist employees are professionals
who share a community of interest with
The Board has recently had occasion to reexa-
mine the appropriateness of a unit limited to
In Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 250 NLRB 409
the Board held that nurses can
. . . possess such a community of interests as
makes their separate representation appropriate."
250 NLRB at 413. In that case we found a unit lim-
ited to appropriate but in so doing we dis-
avowed any "irrebuttable presumption" of the ap-
propriateness of such a unit and emphasized that
we would examine each case on its particular facts
to determine whether a requested unit limited to
is appropriate.
Our review of the record herein convinces us
that the separate unit of sought by Petitioner
is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining.
Thus, as in Newton-Wellesley, the are adminis-
tratively separated into a distinct nursing depart-
ment and receive common specialized supervision
from the unit supervisors as well as from the direc-
tor and assistant director of nursing. The
work in close and continuous contact with each
other and share a common background with re-
spect to education, training, experience, and licens-
ing. Because of their diversity of skills, the
can and do transfer to various departments
throughout the hospital. Also of substantial signifi-
cance is the fact that the are uniquely respon-
sible for the continuous, round-the-clock care of
particular groups of patients. These responsibilities
involve virtually all aspects relating to overall pa-
tient well-being.
In the pharmacists and medical tech-
nologists work outside the nursing department in
departments separate from each other and have dif-
ferent immediate supervision. They have limited
personal contact with the patients and they gener-
ally remain closely tied to their specific work areas
and equipment rather than engaging in the continu-
ous, multifaceted patient care undertaken by the
Finally, we note that the working contacts
The record reveals that the Employer employs one part-time regis-
tered pharmacist who works in a separate pharmacy department and re-
ports to the administrator. The laboratory technologists, who are respon-
sible for analysis of blood chemistry, hematology, parasitology, serology,
bacteriology, bloodbanking and urinalysis, work in the clinical laboratory
department under the supervision of the Medical Director and Chief
Technologists.
We d o recognize that some terms of employment are common to
and the nonnurse professionals. These include insurance, pension
plan, and leave opportunities. In addition, the hospital administator pro-
vides common, top-level supervision. The record reveals, however, that
the foregoing terms are common to virtually all hospital employees in-
cluding both professionals and
between the and other professionals occur
only on an intermittent basis with each contact
being of limited
Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the
appropriateness of a separate unit of has been
adequately established.
The remaining issue before us is whether, as con-
tended by the Employer, the specialty unit supervi-
sors are supervisors under the Act who should be
excluded from the unit found appropriate herein.
The nursing department is into a general
medical-surgical unit and the following specialty
units: obstetrics, intensive care, op-
erating room, recovery room and emergency room.
Each specialty unit is headed by a unit supervisor
who reports to the director of nursing. The parties
stipulated and we agree that the operating room su-
pervisor is a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act but the remaining specialty unit are
in
The record reveals that each specialty unit su-
pervisor is responsible for the operation of his or
her particular unit. Each has authority to assign
work, transfer employees in and out of the unit, in-
struct and train employees, issue written repri-
mands, evaluate employees for purposes of merit
increases or promotions, and adjust grievances. The
unit supervisors can select employees to work in
their unit and can effectively veto either the hiring
of an employee or the assignment of an employee
to the unit. They also have authority to initiate and
implement the discharge of an employee who com-
mits a substantial violation of the Employer's rules.
In our view, the foregoing primary indicia of su- -
pervisory status amply demonstrate that the spe-
cialty unit supervisors are supervisors within the
meaning of Section of the Act. We, therefore,
shall exclude them from the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employ-
ees of the Employer constitute an appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section of the Act:
Compare, Mount Airy Foundation Mount Airy Psychiatric
Center. 2 5 3 NLRB No. 139 where a panel of the board found ap-
propriate a unit that included, and certain nonnurse pro-
fessionals designated "team leaders." In case. the and the non-
nurse team leaders were responsible for continuous overall psychiat-
ric care of a specific group of patients, with the performing medical
tasks only during infrequent emergencies. We thus found a unit including
both groups to be because the employees stood "in an identi-
cal position" to that they "perform virtually the same daily
tasks, substitute for each other, receive the same benefits, and are subject
to the same supervision." We find no such substantial shared communtty
of interest and nonnurse professionals in the instant case.
Member did not participate in Airy.
T h e parties also and we agree, that the following persons
are under the Act: director of nursing; assistant of
nursing; in-service director; utilization review coordinator; day, and
supervisors; and, day charge nurse of the medical-surgical wing.
OJAI
Ern-
exclud-
ing nurses assistants [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
1359 VALLEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
All registered nurses employed by the and supervisors as defined in the Act, as well
ployer at its Ojai, California, location; as other employees.
licensed vocational nurses,

omitted from publication.]