San Diego Blood Bank

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 14, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 116 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
San Diego Blood Bank and Building Material and
Dump Truck Drivers Local No. 36 of the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Case 21-RC-13962
July 14, 1975
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Orville S.
Johnson. 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, a brief was filed by 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. The San Diego Blood Bank is an independent
nonprofit corporation which provides blood-pro-
cessing services to meet the requirements for the
treatment of patients of 29 hospitals in San Diego
County, California. Approximately 80 percent of
these services are provided to five nonprofit hospi-
tals. It recruits blood donors, draws, processes, and
prepares blood in a variety of blood components,
stores the blood in its own facility, and distributes it
to hospitals. It delivers blood to the hospitals on a
24-hour basis and directly charges the patients a $13
processing fee and a $25 replacement fee for each
unit of blood. The latter fee is canceled if the patient
provides a unit of blood to replace the unit used. The
Employer also exchanges units of processed blood
with the U.S. Navy Hospital in San Diego and par-
ticipates in the National Clearing House operated by
the American Association of Blood Banks which
sends and receives blood or blood credits throughout
the country.
During the 12-month period preceding the hearing,
the Employer had gross revenues in excess of $1 mil-
lion and purchased and received in California goods
valued in excess of $50,000 from firms which pur-
chased them directly from outside the State of Cali-
fornia. Through its participation in the National
Clearing House operated by the American Associa-
tion of Blood Banks the Employer had gross receipts
varying between approximately $1,000 and $5,000
per month.
The Employer contends that the Board should not
assert jurisdiction because (1) its operations are local
in nature and have no substantial impact on com-
merce , (2) the Board's policy is not to assert jurisdic-
tion over community blood banks, and (3) the recent
health care amendments (P.L. 93-360), which re-
moved the Act's exemption for nonprofit health care
facilities, make no mention of blood banks. The Em-
ployer further contends that if the Board does assert
jurisdiction, it should rule that the Employer is a
health care institution within the meaning of Section
2(14) of the Act.
The Employer's operations and impact on com-
merce are sufficient to warrant the Board's assertion
of jurisdiction. Its annual gross revenue of more than
$1 million exceeds dollar-volume standards set by
the Board for the assertion of jurisdiction. The pur-
chase of goods valued in excess of $50,000 which
originate outside the State of California satisfies im-
pact on commerce requirements. The appropriate-
ness of the assertion of jurisdiction with respect to
community, nonprofit blood banks was decided in
American National Red Cross, District of Columbia
Chapter, 211 NLRB 587 (1974). The determination to
assert jurisdiction in that case is controlling here.
Even if the Employer here were found to resemble
the blood bank in Inter-County Blood Banks, Inc., 165
NLRB 252 (1967), more than the District of Colum-
bia Chapter of American National Red Cross, this
would not affect the Board's assertion of jurisdiction.
In that case jurisdiction was refused because the
Board found the employer's operations to be inti-
mately related with the operations of the nonprofit
hospitals to which it supplied blood. Inasmuch as the
nonprofit hospitals were then exempt by statute, it
was felt that jurisdiction should not be asserted over
their intimately related blood banks. Since, however,
the exemption for nonprofit hospitals was removed
by the 1974 health care amendements (P.L. 93-360),
Inter-County Blood Banks, supra, no longer provides
authority for not asserting jurisdiction over nonprofit
blood banks. In view therefore of its substantial in-
volvement in operations affecting commerce, we find
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this pro-
ceeding.
We also find that the Employer is not a health care
institution within the meaning of the 1974 amend-
ments . The legislative history makes it clear that the
219 NLRB No. 13
SAN DIEGO BLOOD BANK 117
special provisions of the Act applicable to health care
institutions relate to "patient care situations " and not
"purely administrative health connected facilities."
See 120 Cong. Rec. H4594 (daily ed., May 30, 1974);
120 Cong. Rec. S73 10 (daily ed., May 7, 1974). Since
supplying blood to hospitals obviously does not in-
volve patient care, blood banks are not health care
institutions within the meaning of the amendments.
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)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner seeks representation of employees in
the Employer's distribution department. This in-
cludes desk operators, drivers, combination desk op-
erator-drivers , regular part-time drivers , maintenance
men, and a hospital file clerk. Employer would ex-
clude from the unit the desk operators and combina-
tion desk operator-drivers as supervisors, and the
hospital file clerk as an office clerical employee. Peti-
tioner would exclude from the unit one of the part-
time drivers because he is the son of the assistant
administrator of the Employer.
There are three desk operators and two or three
combination desk operator-drivers. These are
claimed to be supervisors because they assign work
and allegedly exercise other supervisory functions
with respect to two full-time drivers and two or three
part-time drivers. The desk operators work on three
different shifts, 5 days a week, directing the drivers
with respect to the delivery to and pickup of blood
from the various hospitals in San Diego serviced by
the blood bank. The combination desk operator-driv-
ers serve as drivers in the evening and perform the
functions of desk operators on weekends.
Respondent's claim that the desk operators are su-
pervisors because they oversee the work of the driv-
ers would result in five supervisors, in addition to the
distribution supervisor in charge of the distribution
department, for approximately five employees. It is
clear, as shall be shown, that the so-called superviso-
ry functions of all employees while serving as desk
operators are extremely limited. As to some, howev-
er, they are nonexistent . Since no drivers are em-
ployed on the night shift and deliveries are effected
by the use of taxicabs, the desk operators and combi-
nation desk operator-drivers who are employed on
the night shift obviously perform no supervisory
functions whatever with respect to drivers.
It is also apparent from the limited scope of their
supervisory responsibility, as well as the testimony
about the supervision actually exercised, that the
claimed supervisory functions performed by the re-
maining desk operators and combination desk opera-
tor-drivers do not render them "supervisors" within
the meaning of the Act. The assistant administrator
of the blood bank testified that their responsibility
for the assignment of duties to drivers was exercised
"routinely." He described desk operators as being in
charge for an 8-hour period during which "They is-
sue the orders to the drivers as to where they are to
go, what they are delivering, what they are to deliver,
what they are to pick up and return to the blood
bank" and that "They are responsible for the proper
conduct of duty on the part of the driver." He further
testified that "They are responsible for the manage-
ment of the inventory of blood that is within the
blood bank itself and also that which is within the
hands of the hospital." But there was no evidence
that this amounted to anything more than their
checking the blood inventory in three refrigerators
and comparing the tally with the main inventory re-
cords.
In connection with these responsibilities, the assis-
tant administrator testified in general and conclu-
sionary terms that the desk operators exercised the
entire spectrum of supervisory functions. However,
when pressed for specific examples to illustrate the
nature of the supervision, his testimony fell far short
of demonstrating the performance of a supervisory
role involving the use of independent judgment or
activities of more than a routine nature. He testified
that the desk operators occasionally adjust the work-
ing hours of drivers by an hour or so to allow for a
medical appointment or the like, but that their basic
schedule is established by the distribution supervisor,
and that they call in a replacement when a driver
fails to report.
The only other illustrations of the exercise of su-
pervisory functions recalled by the assistant adminis-
trator were administering verbal reprimands to driv-
ers for failing to follow the scheduled order of
deliveries and pickups, reporting to the distribution
supervisor a driver's failure to clean up the refrigerat-
ed box for blood within his vehicle, recommending
the termination of a driver who was later terminated
by the distribution supervisor for habitually report-
ing late and not responding promptly to directions,
and the recommendation of merit increases. Howev-
er, there is no evidence that such supervisory func-
tions are performed other than on an occasional ba-
sis.
It is clear that the testimony of the assistant ad-
ministrator does not provide evidence that the desk
operators' "supervision" involves the use of indepen-
dent judgment or that their functions is other than of
a merely routine nature. The immediate supervisor of
the desk operators is the distribution supervisor who
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
performs the basic supervisory role for the distribu-
tion department and exercises all supervisory func-
tions involving the use of independent judgment. The
distribution supervisor is in turn responsible to the
assistant administrator officer who reports to the
medical director in his capacity as chief administra-
tive officer . In this management hierarchy the desk
operators obviously perform nothing more than "su-
pervisory" functions of a routine nature not requiring
the exercise of independent judgment . We conclude
therefore that they are not supervisors within the
meaning of the Act and are appropriately a part of
the unit sought by Petitioner . See UTD Corporation
(Union-Card Division), 165 NLRB 346 (1967); Corey
Brothers, Inc., 162 NLRB 1253 (1967); Welsh Farms
Ice Cream, Inc., 161 NLRB 748 (1966).
The hospital file clerk's principal responsibility is
the filing involved in the maintenance of the blood
bank inventory records which keep track of blood
transferred out to the hospitals and transferred back.
She works in the same area as the desk operators and
drivers when they are in the blood bank and under
the supervision of the same distribution supervisor.
The hospital file clerk also fills in when the desk op-
erator is temporarily absent . The drivers from time to
time perform the duties of the hospital file clerk at
night , since the hospital file clerk works only during
the day. The hospital file clerk is paid on a salaried
basis and receives overtime compensation for hours
worked in addition to regular hours in the same man-
ner as all other full-time employees in the distribu-
tion department. The foregoing factors make it ap-
propriate to include the hospital file clerk in the unit.
Petitioner seeks to exclude from the unit a part-
time driver because he is the son of the assistant ad-
ministrator. Since the Employer is a nonprofit orga-
nization, and there is no evidence that the son enjoys
special status which allies him with management, we
do not believe that his being the son of the assistant
administrator is sufficient to serve to disqualify him
from inclusion in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
All desk operators, desk operator-drivers, driv-
ers, regular part-time drivers, hospital file clerk,
and maintenance employees, excluding supervi-
sors, office clerical employees, technical employ-
ees, professional employees, and guards as de-
fined in the Act, as amended.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]