Southern California Permanente Medical Group

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 110 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Southern California Permanente Medical Group and
Kaiser Sunset Registered Nurses' Association,
UNAC, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-2563
February 19, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing in this case was held before Hearing Officer
Max Steinfeld. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
' 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.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
brief filed by the Petitioner, the Board finds:
1. Petitioner seeks to represent registered nurses
employed by the Employer at its Pasadena, West
Covina, East Los Angeles. Downtown, Sunset-
Edgemont, and Burbank' clinics, which comprise the
Sunset-Edgemont clinic complex, which in turn is
part of the Sunset-Edgemont medical service facility
that includes a hospital as well as the clinics. The
parties stipulated that the Employer is a California
for-profit partnership of physicians engaged in the
practice of medicine. During the year preceding the
hearing the Employer received revenues in excess of
$500,000 and during the same period it purchased in
excess of $50,000 in goods and supplies from
concerns located outside the State of California.
The Employer contends, however, that the Board
should not assert jurisdiction because the Employer
is a joint employer with the Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals, a nonprofit corporation engaged in the
business of building, equipping, and staffing hospi-
tals. The Employer raised this same issue in Case
21-RC-13303 and the parties requested that the
Board take judicial notice of that proceeding. The
parties stipulated that, if called upon to testify in the
instant proceeding, the Employer's witnesses who
testified in Case 21-RC-13303 concerning the
jurisdictional and appropriate unit issues would give
the same testimony. and that the Board may consider
their testimony in Case 21-RC-13303 in deciding the
issues here.
In these circumstances, and upon the entire record
in the instant case and in Case 21-RC-13303, we
find, for the reasons set forth in Case 21-RC-13303,2
that the Employer does not fall within the nonprofit
hospital exemption of Section 2(2) of the Act.
Accordingly, in view of the Employer's substantial
effect on commerce, we further find that it 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 proceeding.3
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain of the 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. As indicated above, the Petitioner seeks to
represent the registered nurses employed by the
Employer at its Pasadena, West Covina, East Los
Angeles, Downtown. Sunset-Edgemont, and Bur-
bank clinics. The Employer takes the identical unit
position that it took in Case 21-RC-13303; namely,
that the appropriate unit should include registered
nurses employed by the Employer and the Hospital
at five of the seven medical service facilities which
comprise the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan's
southern California service region . The Employer
stated at the hearing that the Employer's evidence on
the unit issues raised in this case would be the same
as the evidence presented in Case 21-RC-13303 and
offered no further evidence in the instant proceeding.
The Petitioner presented additional evidence as to
the separate lines of authority and supervision
between the Sunset-Edgemont hospital and the
above-named clinics operated by the Employer, and
as to the lack of interchange between the nurses
employed in the hospital and those employed in such
clinics. Sonia Moseley, a registered nurse employed
at the Sunset-Edgemont medical center clinic,
testified that the training, skills, and experienc(t of
registered nurses in the hospital and clinic complex
differed in certain respects and that the hours of
work were different.
A question also exists as to the placement of
emergency room nurses employed by the Employer
in the emergency room at the Sunset-Edgemont
medical center. The record establishes that the
emergency room operation at the Sunset-Edgemont
medical center is similar to the emergency room
operation in Case 21-RC-13303. The parties stipulat-
ed that hospital nurses do not work in the emergency
room and emergency room nurses do not work in the
i At the hednng, the Petitioner amended its petition to include Burbank 3 In Case 21-RC-13303. supra, we denied the Employer 's motion to
as part of the unit description in accord with the Employer 's position that consolidate that case with the instant case. We further deny the Employer's
the Burbank clinic is part of the Sunset-Edgemont clinic complex . request herein that the Board take official notice of the proceedings in Cases
2 209 NLRB No 26 , issued simultaneously herewith 20-RC-10243 and 8-CA-7259 . which involve other locations
209 NLRB No. 27
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP
hospital; that emergency room personnel make all
preparations for surgery patients in the emergency
room and that emergency room nurses sometimes
accompany patients being admitted to the cardiac
and intensive care units to the hospital room upon
the patient's admission to the hospital. The parties
further stipulated that there is a common parking lot
for the Sunset-Edgemont hospital and clinic employ-
ees and that there are three lunchrooms located in
the Sunset-Edgemont medical center buildings open
to all employees.
On these facts, and upon the entire record in the
instant case and in Case 2l-RC-13303, we find, for
the reasons set forth in Case 21-RC-13303, that the
following employees of the Employer constitute an
III
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All registered nurses employed by the Employer
at its Pasadena. West Covina, East Los Angeles,
Downtown, Sunset-Edgemont, and Burbank,
California, clinic complex, including emergency
room registered nurses employed at the Sunset-
Edgemont medical center, and excluding all other
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]