Paramount General Hospital, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 31 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

PARAMOUNT GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC.
Paramount General Hospital, Inc. and Hospital and
Service Employees Union Local 399 , Service Em-
ployees International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 21-RC-13855
March 21, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On November 1, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 21 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding wherein he directed an
election in the Petitioner's requested unit, excluding
therefrom, inter alia, registry employees employed by
the Employer in its hospital operations. Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Employer filed a timely request for re-
view of the Regional Director's Decision on the
grounds, inter alia, that in concluding that registry
employees should be excluded from the unit, he made
findings of fact which are clearly erroneous and depart
from Board precedent.
By telegraphic order dated December 4, 1974, the
request for review was granted regarding the exclusion
of certain registry employees, and it was denied in all
other respects. The election was stayed pending deci-
sion on review.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review and hereby
affirms the Regional Director's Decision and Direction
of Election.' The appropriate unit is as described
below?
All employees employed by the Employer at its
hospital located at 16453 South Colorado Boule-
vard, Paramount, California; excluding profes-
sional employees, registered nurses, medical doc-
tors, registry employees, employees of contract
employers, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Re-
gional Director for Region 21 for the purpose of con-
I The Regional Director's pertinent findings are excerpted from his Deci-
sion and Direction of Election and attached as an appendix hereto We
granted review herein partly in view of the Board's scheduled oral argument
in a number of cases raising unit issues in nonprofit hospitals. We are
satisfied, upon review of the record, that the Regional Director appropri-
ately concluded that the registry employees, like those of contract employ-
ers, have a sufficiently distinct community of interest apart from the em-
ployees in the requested unit to justify their exclusion from the unit
2 The unit description set forth by the Regional Director in his Decision
is modified to make clear the specific exclusions from the unit, particularly
the fact that the housekeeping employees, nonprofessional pharmacy em-
ployees, unlicensed clinical laboratory employees, and laboratory clericals
are employees of contract employers.
31
ducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direc-
tion of Election in the appropriate unit, as described
above, except that the period for determining eligibility
shall be the payroll period immediately preceding the
date of this Decision on Review.3
3 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to,vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad-
dresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear
Inc., 156 NLRB 1236 (1966), N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759
(1969). Accordingly, it is hereby directed that a revised election eligibility
list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 21 within 7
days of the date of this Decision on Review. The Regional Director shall
make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time
to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordi-
nary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be
grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed
APPENDIX
The Employer is a California corporation engaged in
the operation of an acute hospital located at 16453
South Colorado Boulevard , Paramount, California.
Petitioner seeks to represent all employees of the
Employer employed at the hospital , excluding all
professional employees , registered nurses, medical doc-
tors, guards , and supervisors , as defined in the Act. The
Employer , in addition, would include in the unit, all
registry employees , nonprofessional pharmacy em-
ployees, housekeeping employees , and unlicensed clini-
cal laboratory technicians, and laboratory employees,
all of whom the Employer claims are jointly employed
by it. Petitioner, on the other hand, would exclude such
employees, inasmuch as it contends that they are not
jointly employed by the Employer . There is no history
of collective-bargaining for any of the employees in-
volved in this proceeding.
The registry employees in question are Licensed Vo-
cational Nurses (LVN's) and nurses aides whom the
Employer claims are employed on a recurrent basis,
and who are paid directly by the Employer. (There are
other registry employees who are paid by the registry,
rather than the hospital , but whom the Employer does
not seek to include in the unit.) Registry employees,
who are often employed by more than one registry, are
sent by any of the several independent registries with
which the Employer does business , according to the
needs of the latter, on a temporary basis. These em-
ployees receive per diem compensation negotiated by
the Employer and the registry , which, on an hourly
basis, works out to a rate higher than regular employees
at the hospital in the same classifications . The purpose
of the higher rates is to compensate the registry em-
ployees for their lack of benefits , which the regular
employees receive from the hospital.
Although the registry employees wear ID badges like
the regular employees , share the same breaks, lunch-
217 NLRB No. 22
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time, 'cafeteria, shift schedules, and employee rules,
wear similar uniforms, and are subject to similar nurs-
ing supervision and disciplinary action as the regular
employees, the registry employees are hired by their
respective registries, where they submit job applica-
tions. Each registry employee who is paid directly by
the Employer has a contract with one or more registries
to which a fee is paid for job assignments. Registry
employees are not subject to job evaluations, either
before assignment or thereafter. If the hospital is satis-
fied with her work, it may request her for future assign-
ments. The assignments are for limited periods of time
to fulfill a temporary need of the hospital.
Registry employees do not submit job applications to
the Employer at the start of an assignment, but merely
show their licenses . They punch in and out of the hospi-
tal timeclock, like the regular employees, but must, in
addition, sign in and out on a separate sheet for registry
employees. Further, registry employees are coded dif-
ferently on the Employer's payroll records. There is no
hospital policy for advancement or registry employees
to supervisory positions. On occasion, registry em-
ployees attend educational programs provided by the
Employer, on such matters as fire and safety, but the
record does not substantiate the Employer's contention
that they receive discounts on medical services at the
hospital. It does not appear that they have a grievance
procedure with the Employer, although their registries
provide such.
The other employees in the dispute at the hospital
are the housekeeping employees employed by Univer-
sal Hospital Care, nonprofessional pharmacy em-
ployees employed by Sigma Medical Enterprises, and
unlicensed laboratory technicians and laboratory cleri-
cals employed by Medical Lab Management. Early in
the hearing the Employer had also sought to include
nonprofessional physical therapy employees employed
by Century Plaza Therapy; however, the Employer
subsequently withdrew that contention. None of the
other employers appeared at the hearing.
The aforementioned employers, hereafter called con-
tract employers, have similar contractual relationships
with the Employer to provide employees on a steady,
full-time basis, in the aforementioned classifications,
depending upon the needs of the Employer.
The employees are interviewed and hired by their
respective contract employers from whom they also
receive their paychecks. The employees are not
screened further by the Employer prior to hire. They
enjoy benefits through their respective contract em-
ployers as well as workmen's compensation. Each con-
tract employer has a supervisor for its employees. Such
supervisors are department heads at the hospital, but
are paid by their respective contract employers. Such
supervisors attend hospital committee meetings and de-
termine who is to work overtime in their departments.
The employees in question do not submit employment
applications to the Employer, although the latter re-
tains the right to terminate such employees or recom-
mend such to their employers, during the 90-day pro-
bationary period for new employees. The employees
wear ID badges like the regular employees, but the
Employer does not maintain a separate file on each of
the employees in question. The Employer merely keeps
a folder on each contract employer showing a roster of
employees during a given period from that company
and to whom ID badges have been issued by the Em-
ployer.
The contract employers' employees punch a time-
clock like the regular employees; attend in-service pro-
grams regarding such matters as fire, safety, and disas-
ter preparedness with the regular employees; are
subject to hospital discipline; use the same dining room
as regular employees for breaks and meals; are entitled
to discounts for services at the hospital; and are subject
to the same employee rules as the regular employees.
The work of the unlicensed laboratory technicians is
screened by the Employer for accuracy. There are joint
meetings between the Employer and contract employ-
ers' supervisors to discuss working conditions,
schedules, -and adequacy of staffing. Neither at these
meetings nor at any other times do they discuss the
wages, hours, or benefits of the employees in question.
There is no evidence that the Employer employs any
employees in the same classifications as the employees
in question.
As previously mentioned, the Employer contends
that a joint-employer relationship exists between it and
the registries, as well as it and the contract employers,
and that, therefore, the employees of said registries and
contract employers must be included in the hospital-
wide unit.
For purposes of my decision here, I do not find it
necessary to determine whether the record substan-
tially supports a finding that a joint-employer relation-
ship exists between the Employer and the various regis-
tries and contract employers. For even if such a
relationship were found, it does not necessarily follow
that a hospitalwide unit including the employees of the
various registries and contract employers is the only
appropriate unit. Rather, the question is whether the
unit sought by Petitioner, which excludes the disputed
employees, may also be appropriate within the meaning
of the Act. The Western and Southern Life Insurance
Company, 163 NLRB 138; Bargain Town U.S.A. of
Puerto Rico, Inc., 162 NLRB 1145, 1147.
While there are a number of factors which indicate
that all of the employees at the hospital share a com-
mon community of interest, there are other significant
factors which establish that the employees of the regis-
PARAMOUNT GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC.
tries and contract employers also have a separate and
distinct community of interest from that of the other
employees. Thus, registry employees are temporary
employees who work as needed, are paid on a per diem
basis, and receive no fringe benefits. They often work
for more than one employer and are free to accept or
reject referrals if they so desire. They are hired by their
respective registry or registries and are not evaluated by
the Employer when reporting to work or thereafter.
And, unlike regular employees, each registered em-
ployee pays a registry fee for each job referral and is
required to sign in and out at the hospital on a registry
employee sheet.
In the case of the employees of the contract employ-
ers, the record discloses that those employees, unlike
the Employer's regular employees, are paid and super-
vised by their contract employers, receive benefits and
workmen's compensation through them, and are inter-
viewed and hired by them at which time new employees
are informed of their wages, hours, and working condi-
tions. The employees do not submit employment ap-
plications to the Employer, they are not further
33
screened by the Employer, and the Employer does not
maintain separate personnel records for them. And
while the Employer and the contract employers jointly
determine staffing patterns and general fees for the
services, the contract employers do not consult with the
Employer regarding specific, wages, hours, or benefits
of the employees in question.
Under all of the circumstances, including the ab-
sence of a bargaining history for any of the employees
and of a request by a union for the inclusion of the
registry. employees or the contract employers' em-
ployees, cf. Jewel Tea Co. Inc., etc., 162 NLRB 508,
510, I find that the employment interest of those em-
ployeds are sufficiently different from those of the em-
ployees sought by Petitioner to warrant their exclusion
from the unit. Bargain Town U.S.A. of Puerto Rico,
Inc., supra. Accord: Zayre Corp., 170 NLRB 1751,
1752. Accordingly, I shall direct an election in the unit
sought by Petitioner, which I find to be an appropriate
unit.
There are approximately 300 employees in the unit.