Sacramento Medical Foundation Blood Bank

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 904 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Medical Foundation Blood Bank and Cal-
ifornia Association for Medical Laboratory Tech-
nology, Engineers and Scientists of California,' Pe-
titioner. Case 20-RC-12683
September 29, 1975
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
Under a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Bernard
Hopkins. Following the hearing and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8 , as amended, this
case was transferred to the Board for decision.
Thereafter, briefs were filed by Petitioner and the
Employer.
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 reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. Sacramento Medical Foundation Blood Bank is
an independent nonprofit corporation which pro-
vides blood-processing services in the greater north-
ern California area . Approximately 70 percent of
these services are provided to about 40 hospitals and
health care institutions in this area. The Employer is
the sole source of blood for the community which it
serves. The remaining 30 percent is provided to the
Sacramento Medical Center which is owned by the
1 The Employer asserts that Petitioner 's correct name should indicate an
affiliation with the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (MEBA),
AFL-CIO. In its brief , Employer contends that because of the uncertainty
regarding Petitioner's identity, the petition either must be dismissed for fail-
ure of Petitioner to properly identify itself therein , or the hearing reopened
to obtain clarifying information . The Employer has also filed a motion to
reopen the record based on the discovery of evidence not previously avail-
able, which it contends bears on the issue of affiliation with MEBA.
At the hearing, Petitioner 's representative testified that the California As-
sociation for Medical Laboratory Technology is now an organizing commit-
tee of the Engineers and Scientists of California (ESC). He also testified that
there has been confusion and problems concerning what term correctly de-
scribe ESC's relationship with MEBA . He further testified , however, that
ESC is not, in a true sense , affiliated with MEBA. Thus, the record evidence
discloses that, as an autonomous unit of the ESC, Petitioner has its own
constitution which is not subject to the constitution of MEBA, does not pay
any dues or payments to MEBA, and elects its own officers , none of whom
participate in the affairs of MEBA. Based on these facts and the record as
a whole , we find that Petitioner 's designation is correct as it appears above
Accordingly, the Respondent's motion to reopen the record is denied.
University of California and operated by the Medical
School at Davis. The blood bank recruits donors,
draws, tests, and processes blood, and distributes
blood to hospitals daily. The blood is placed in the
hospital on a consignment basis and patients actually
receiving the blood are charged a $15-responsibility
fee and a $25-processing fee for each unit of blood.'
The former fee is waived if the patient provides a
unit of blood to replace that used and the latter fee is
also waived if the patient provides two units of blood
for the one used.
The Employer has annual gross revenues in excess
of $500,000 and it annually purchases goods and sup-
plies valued in excess of $50,000 from firms which
are directly engaged in interstate commerce. For ex-
ample, the Employer purchases "blood bags" directly
from outside the State of California valued in excess
of $200,000 annually.
The Employer contends that the Board should not
assert jurisdiction because (1) its operations are non-
commercial with a charitable purpose and do not
have a massive impact on commerce, and (2) a strike
would have a disastrous effect on the entire commu-
nity which it serves.
The Employer's annual gross revenue of more than
$500,000 exceeds dollar-volume standards set by the
Board for assertion of jurisdiction. The purchase of
goods valued in excess of $50,000 which originate
outside the State of California satisfies impact on
commerce requirements. In light of the foregoing,
and for the reasons stated in San Diego Blood Bank,
219 NLRB No. 13 (1975), we deem the Employer's
operations and impact on commerce as sufficient to
warrant the Board's assertion of jurisdiction.3
2. The labor organization involved claims to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(I) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated and we find that the fol-
lowing employees constitute an appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All professional medical laboratory technolo-
gists employed by Sacramento Medical Founda-
tion Blood Bank at its Sacramento, California,
facility, excluding all other employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
2 Though the patient has the responsibility for paying for blood used, the
hospitals do the billing, thus, in effect , acting as a collection agency for the
blood bank.
3 We also rely on San Diego Blood Bank, supra, in finding that the Em-
ployer is not a health care institution within the meaning of the 1974 health
care amendments (P.L 93-360).
220 NLRB No. 156