Peter Bent Brigham Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 929 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

PETER BENT BRIGHAM HOSPITAL
Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, a Division of the
Affiliated Hospital Centers, Inc. and International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 877, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case I -RC- 14925
August 31, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
On December 28, 1976, International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 877, AFL-CIO, hereinaf-
ter the Petitioner, filed the petition in the above-
entitled case seeking an election at Peter Bent
Brigham Hospital, a division of the Affiliated
Hospital Centers, Inc. (hereinafter the Employer or
the Hospital), of all employees in the Employer's
engineering department. Subsequently, the Regional
Director issued a notice of representation hearing on
January 18, 1977. A hearing was held, pursuant to
Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, on January 26, 27, and 31 and February 1,
1977, before Hearing Officer Joseph D. Feaster. On
March 2, 1977, the Acting Regional Director for
Region I transferred the above-entitled case to the
Board in Washington, D.C., for decision. Thereafter,
both parties filed briefs. On April 7, 1977, the
Employer filed a motion to amend the record by
adding 89 employees to its requested unit. Petitioner,
on April 12, 1977, filed an opposition to the
Employer's motion.
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, having duly considered the Hearing
Officer's rulings made at the hearing, finds that they
are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the
Board finds:
I. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, a division of the
Affiliated Hospital Centers, Inc., is a nonprofit
Massachusetts corporation engaged in patient care,
teaching, and research, and is a health care institu-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
The Employer annually derives revenue in excess of
$250,000, and the parties have stipulated that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Accordingly, we find it will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. We find that International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 877, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
231 NLRB No. 132
3. A question concerning representation exists
regarding the representation of certain employees
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) of the Act.
4. The Employer, a 330-bed Harvard Medical
School teaching hospital, employs approximately 950
professional and 2,300 nonprofessional employees.
The Employer operates both inpatient and outpa-
tient facilities, as well as neighborhood health centers
in the greater Boston area.
The Hospital is divided into seven divisions, each
headed by an associate director. The director, the
chief administrator, is above the associate directors
in the hospital hierarchy; he is answerable only to the
board of overseers and its executive committee.
Seven doctors, the chiefs of service, form the
executive committee of the medical staff, which
advises the director. Within the seven divisions are
several departments. In the plant services division,
headed by Associate Director Stomberg, there are
eight departments under the immediate supervision
of Assistant Director for Plant Services Beltramini.
One of these departments is plant engineering, the
unit sought by Petitioner in the case herein.
The engineering department consists of 39 employ-
ees, 6 of whom are licensed by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (although the Hospital only requires
licensing of 3); 3 are journeymen or the equivalent,
and 2 are apprentices from a local trade school. Both
the classification and level of skill in the department
represent a broad mix. For example, there are
carpenters, painters, and electricians, as well as
plumbers and maintenance mechanics, in the depart-
ment; as a group, these employees are both skilled
and relatively unskilled; some have recently gradu-
ated from high school. Most of the 39 work solely
within their own job classification.
The nature of the work performed by plant
engineering employees is relatively uncomplicated,
for the most part requiring handyman skills. Engi-
neering employees function in both a preventive and
remedial capacity, e.g., changing lightbulbs, fitting
and fixing air-conditioners, fixing loose tile or
plaster, checking fixtures, doing small-scale painting.
They operate in several ways. First, they' usually
make routine tours of the Hospital, checking a
notebook, called the "Minor Engineering Repair
Log," for service requests. Normally such repairs can
be performed on the spot, since the men carry
around a tool and supply cart in order to handle the
customary minor jobs. Second, a man could be sent
out to use his specific skill, having been called by
another hospital employee, perhaps a nurse. Third,
any of the employees could be sent out by any of
their superiors on a project usually involving preven-
tive maintenance, such as getting a room ready for a
patient requiring special environmental conditions.
929
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Insofar as larger and more complex jobs are
involved, the Employer hires independent contrac-
tors. The share of the plant engineering budget which
is allocated to jobs performed by outside contractors
appears to be substantial.' The Hospital would often
subcontract out work such as building construction
renovations, elevator repair work, and major electri-
cal, plumbing, or painting jobs; several outside
contractors might be working in or outside the
Hospital on any given day. Thus, most of the
nonroutine maintenance work would be performed
by these outside contractors.
With respect to utilities, the Hospital purchases all
of its needs from the outside. This includes steam,
chilled water, oxygen, compressed air, DC electricity
(all from the Harvard Power Plant), and AC
electricity (from Boston Edison). Although some
engineering employees might perform minor repair
work on these systems, 2 the Hospital has neither
stationary nor boilerroom engineers.
Hospital policy regarding wages and overtime,
hours and break periods, fringe benefits (e.g.,
medical insurance, pension benefits, life insurance,
leave time, vacations), and personnel policy (e.g.,
hiring, firing, grievance procedure, employee evalu-
ation, orientation) is established on a hospitalwide
uniform basis. As to pay, the Employer has a
hospitalwide pay schedule ranging from grades I
through 23, the highest numerical grade being the
best paid. While all of the engineering department
employees fall between grades 2 and 10, most are at
least at grade 7. In general, service and maintenance
employees at the Hospital are classed anywhere from
grades I through 1.
Engineering department employees work in all
areas of the Hospital, wherever they are needed. In
order for them to carry out their jobs effectively, in
fact, they must deal with other employees to fix
particular maintenance problems. Nearly all of their
working hours are spent outside the area of the
I Several of' the Employer's witnesses offered substantial support for the
Employer's contention that a significant share of its plant engineenng
budget went for outside contractors. Both John Anderson, the Employer's
director for plant maintenance, and William Feuer, the Employer's
associate director for personnel services, testified that outside contracting
constituted about 50 percent of the work and the budget in the plant
engineering department. Petitioner offered no evidence at the hearing to
rebut the Employer's contention.
2 The Hospital has two oxygen systems. One is the central system
connected to the Harvard Power Plant; the other is an independent in-
hospital system operated by the anesthesiology department. The latter may
be used as a backup system. It is the central system, confined to the in-
hospital links to the power plant, that is maintained by the engineering
department.
:' After the hearing in the above-entitled case had been closed on
February 1. 1977. the Employer filed a motion to amend the record by
adding 89 employees to its requested unit of service and maintenance
employees, They are: 5 admitting department officers; 22 radiology
department employees, most of whom are either junior file clerks or
engineering department. Engineering employees also
interact with other hospital employees in common
areas such as the cafeteria, coffeeshop, and parking
lot. Engineering department employees work with
other employees, e.g., adjusting beds, windows, air-
conditioners, oxygen tubes, and toilets. They have
also helped housekeeping employees when the
Hospital was flooded by a heavy rain. In addition,
engineering employees, along with other employees
of the Hospital, sit on hospital committees, such as
the suggestion plan committee, the outing committee,
and the personnel board. Furthermore, the Hospital
has an interdepartmental transfer policy for which all
employees are eligible. Over the past 3 years,
approximately six employees have transferred in and
two out of the engineering department.
The Employer contends that the unit sought by
Petitioner is inappropriate for several reasons. First,
the employees of the engineering department lack
true craft status. Second, the engineering employees
do not possess a sufficient community of interest
separate and apart from other service and mainte-
nance employees. Third, there is a high degree of
functional integration between engineering depart-
ment employees and other service and maintenance
employees. Fourth, the legislative history of the 1974
hospital amendments make it clear that Congress is
concerned about the possible undue proliferation of
bargaining units at hospitals. As an alternative to the
unit sought by Petitioner, the Employer proposes a
unit of all service and maintenance unit employees at
the Hospital. Petitioner has agreed to proceed to an
election in a broader service and maintenance unit in
the event that the Board finds the engineering unit to
be an inappropriate unit; however, Petitioner would
still exclude the blood drawers, family health
workers, and the animal caretakers.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the
engineering department is an inappropriate unit for
several reasons. 3 First, the engineering employees in
expeditor receptionists; 37 medical record department employees: 12
switchboard operators; 13 pharmacy employees. The Employer claims
inadvertence in its failure to include these groups in its proposed unit in the
brief and at the hearing; Petitioner opposes the motion to amend on the
grounds that the Employer had ample time to submit all pertinent
information at the hearing. Based on the entire record, we shall direct an
election in an appropriate service and maintenance unit, subject to a hearing
on the Employer's motion to amend. This service and maintenance unit
shall include the blood drawers, family health workers, and the animal
caretakers. With respect to the Employer's motion, we shall remand this
proceeding to the Regional Director, and direct him to hold a hearing in
order to adduce the facts so that the Board can determine whether the
proposed additional 89 employees should be added to the overall service
and maintenance unit. Petitioner must notify the Regional Director within
10 days from the issuance of this Decision and Order whether it wishes to
proceed to the hearing and a subsequent election, in either the Employer's
original or broadened service and maintenance unit, and, if so, Petitioner
must submit at that time such additional showing of interest as may be
required to support its petition. American Hospital Management Corp. d/h/ba
930
PETER BENT BRIGHAM HOSPITAL
question lack true craft status. Although a few
employees do hold licenses, the skills required by the
job do not demand, for the most part, that these
employees attain a high degree of proficiency. The
nature of the job is one calling for little trade
specialization and training. In addition, the range of
skills and skill levels involved are greatly varied. The
more difficult and larger jobs are performed by
independent contractors, and both parties agree
(although not precisely) that such outside work
amounts to a substantial percentage of the engineer-
ing department's budget. Neither electricity nor heat
is generated from within the Hospital; at most, the
Hospital maintains a supply of oxygen on hand.
Thus, engineering department employees perform
essentially routine maintenance work.
Furthermore, the engineering department is func-
tionally integrated with the entire plant services
division, and with the Hospital as a whole. Such
functional integration is on the job level, as well as
on the social and organizational level. Although the
engineering department is separately supervised, it is
in all other respects only one department among
many in a highly centralized organization, e.g.,
regarding such matters as personnel policy, wages,
hours, fringe benefits, and hospital committees.
There is no evidence in the record to support
Petitioner's claim that engineering employees earn a
significantly higher wage than other service and
maintenance employees. Nor has Petitioner shown
that the number of transfers into and out of the
engineering department is an insignificant ratio
compared to the total department work force or to
employee turnover in the department.
In addition to the above, there is no evidence in the
record showing that engineering department employ-
ees maintain a community of interest separate and
apart from other service and maintenance employ-
ees. In practically all respects, engineering employees
enjoy the same benefits and must live under the same
rules as service and maintenance employees: they
work under a uniform wage, hour, and fringe benefit
structure, as well as a uniform personnel system. The
Maid River Clommunirt Haspirtal 219 NLRB 25 (1975). Robert W. Hunt
(,ontpan, Inc. 150 NLRB 986 (1965); Statements of Procedure. Series 8, as
amended. Sec. 101 18
Merri. Hospitals of Sacramenio, Inc., 217 NLRB 765. 766(1975).
See Riverside Alethodist Hospital. 223 NL RB 1084 (1976), and S. Joseph
Hspital. 224 N LR B 270 (1976).
In his separate concurring opinion in Sr I incent's Hospital. 223 NLRB
638 (1976), Member Penello clarified his position, as taken in Shriners
Hspirtrls for Crippled Children. 217 NLRB 806 (1975), on the appropriate-
ness of maintenance units in the health care industry In so clarifying his
position, Member Penello stated that he is of the view that a craft
maintenance unit mar be appropriate when, viewed in light of all the criteria
traditionalls considered in determining the appropriateness of maintenance
units gener.ll?. its establishment does not conflict with the congressional
mandate against proliferation of bargaining units in the health care
fact that their uniforms are of a different color is
trivial.
Lastly, Congress has made it clear that it wishes the
Board to give consideration to the prevention of the
undue proliferation of bargaining units in the health
care industry.4 The congressional intent militating
against the proliferation of bargaining units provides
additional support for our conclusion.5
In sum, we conclude that the only appropriate unit
herein would be composed of service and mainte-
nance employees. With respect to skills, conditions of
employment, and interdepartmental integration,
engineering department employees share a communi-
ty of interest with other service and maintenance
employees. Our only remaining question, then. is the
size of the service and maintenance unit. As noted
above, the Employer has filed a motion to amend the
record by adding 89 employees to this service and
maintenance unit, and we are remanding this
proceeding to the Regional Director. Therefore, we
shall order the Regional Director to hold a hearing
on the Employer's motion and to issue a report on
his factual findings. 6
Accordingly, we shall order that (I) the Regional
Director dismiss the instant petition unless the
Petitioner makes a timely showing of interest, and
(2), if Petitioner does so, the Regional Director shall
hold a hearing to make factual findings, and
thereafter shall issue a report.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the hearing in this
proceeding be, and it hereby is, reopened for the
limited purpose of adducing evidence in support of
the Employer's motion to amend the record, and to
permit both parties the opportunity to present any
evidence or contentions relevant to the unit question
arising from the Employer's motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
for Region I for the purpose of conducting such
further hearing and issuing a report thereon, and that
the Regional Director be, and he hereby is, autho-
rized to issue notice thereof to all parties.
industry. This standard, which is a more rigid one than is applied in other
industries. can be met, in Member Penello's view. when the unit sought.
unlike the situation in Shriners, is composed of licensed craftsmen engaged
in traditional craftwork. which is performed in a separate and distinct
location apart from other employees in the health care facility. Normall',.
such employees do not perform other services throughout the health care
facility. as was the case in Shriners, and there is, at most, minimal transfer or
interchange to and from the craft unit. In the instant case. Member Penello
agrees with his colleagues that the unit sought all employees in the
Employer's engineering department is inappropriate since it does not
satisfy the standard set forth by him for finding a craft maintenance unit to
be appropriate.
e Member Jenkins would not hold a hearing on those employees prior to
the election, but would allow them to vote subject to challenge in an election
to be held promptly.
931