St. Joseph Hospital & Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 892 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
St. Joseph Hospital & Medical Center ; Menorah
Medical Center ; Kansas City Lutheran Home &
Hospital Association, d/b/a Trinity Lutheran Hos-
pital ; Research Hospital & Medical Center, Em-
ployer-Petitioners and Operating Engineers, Local
No. 6-6A-6B, affiliated with the International
Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO'
Menorah Medical Center , Employer-Petitioner and
International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers,
Maintenance Mechanics, Production Workers and
Operators, Local No. 1, AFL-CIO? Cases 17-
RM-547, 17-RM-549, 17-RM-550, 17-RM-551,
and 17-RM-548
July 30, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING,
JENKINS, AND PENELLO
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hear-
ing was held before Hearing Officer William Bevan
III. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as
amended , and by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 17, this case was transferred to the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board for decision . Thereaf-
ter, all parties in the above proceeding filed briefs in
support of their respective positions.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error . They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , including the
briefs filed by the parties , the Board finds:
1. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer-Petitioners , which are health care institu-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act,
are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The parties stipulated, and we find, that Operat-
ing Engineers , Local No. 6-6A-6B, affiliated with
the International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as Local 6), and
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers,
Maintenance Mechanics , Production Workers and
Operators, Local No. 1, AFL-CIO (hereinafter re-
ferred to as Local 1 ), are labor organizations within
the meaning of the Act.
3. The record establishes that Local 6 and Local 1
i The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing.
represent separate units of various maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer-Petitioners' hospitals? The
Unions were voluntarily recognized by each of the
Employer- Petitioners and the record establishes that
the Unions and the Employer-Petitioners have main-
tained continuous and harmonious collective-bar-
gaining relationships for periods ranging from 6 to 30
years .4 It is undisputed that the Unions have repre-
sented and continue to represent a majority of the
employees in their respective units.'
The Employer-Petitioners filed the instant peti-
tions,6 contending that the currently recognized units
are no longer appropriate because they are repug-
nant to congressional policy of not proliferating bar-
gaining units in the health care industry and to
Board policy as enunciated in Shriners Hospital for
Crippled Children, 217 NLRB No. 138 (1975). In ad-
dition , the Employer-Petitioners contend that the his-
tory of bargaining in each of the existing units is ir-
relevant inasmuch as it preceded the recent health
care amendments to the Act and the enunciated con-
gressional policy.
The Unions, on the other hand, contend that the
instant petitions do not raise any questions concern-
ing representation because the Employer-Petitioners
do not question the Unions' majority status in any of
the units involved herein. In addition, the Unions
maintain that bargaining history in each of the units
is relevant and controlling, and that Congress did not
intend the Board to ignore such collective-bargaining
history in establishing units in the health care indus-
try. Based on the above.arguments , Local 6 filed mo-
tions to dismiss the petitions in Cases 17-RM-547,
549, 550, and 551. For the reasons hereinafter ex-
pressed , we shall grant the motions to dismiss and
shall dismiss the petition in Case 17-RM-548.
We agree with the Unions' contention that the in-
stant petitions do not raise any questions concerning
representation cognizable under Section 9(c)(1) and
7 At St . Joseph Hospital , Trinity Lutheran Hospital , and Research Hospi-
tal, Local 6 represents separate units consisting of operating engineers and
maintenance engineers . At Menorah Medical Center , Local 6 represents a
unit of operating engineers and Local I represents a unit of maintenance
engineers.
The record establishes that Local 6 has represented maintenance em-
ployees at St. Joseph Hospital since at least 1946 , at Menorah Medical
Center since 1947, at Trinity Lutheran Hospital since 1969, and at Research
Hospital since 1948. The record also indicates that Local I has represented
the operating engineers at Menorah since 1969.
s The parties stipulated as to the Unions ' majority status in all cases ex-
cept Case 17-RM-551 where , however, the Employer-Petitioner therein did
not question Local 6 's majority status.
6The instant petitions were filed following the Regional Director's ad-
ministrative dismissal on April 10, 1975, of five identical petitions , solely for
contract-bar reasons . The original petitions were filed 92 days before the
expiration of the respective contracts . On appeal , the Board reversed the
Regional Director's ruling, modified the length of the insulated period for
contracts in health care institutions , but determined not to reinstate the
original petitions in view of the fact that the current petitions were being
processed . Trinity Lutheran Hospital, et a!, 218 NLRB No. 34 (1975).
219 NLRB No. 161
ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Thus, the Employer-
Petitioners do not question the Unions' majority sta-
tus in any of the units involved herein. Therefore, we
can only conclude that the Employer-Petitioners
have not demonstrated any reasonable doubts that
the Unions herein represent a majority of the em-
ployees in their respective bargaining units , and, in
the absence of such "objective considerations that
[they have] some reasonable grounds for believing
that the [Unions have] lost [their] majority status,"
we find that there is no legal basis upon which to
direct an election , and the instant petitions must
therefore fail.?
We also agree with the Unions' contention that the
bargaining history herein is relevant and controlling.
Thus, we are reluctant to disturb bargaining units
which have been established by the mutual agree-
ment of the parties and in which there have been
long histories of continuous and harmonious collec-
tive bargaining . In the instant cases, the record estab-
lishes that the Employer-Petitioners voluntarily rec-
ognized and bargained with the Unions dating as far
back as the 1940's without ever having challenged or
questioned the appropriateness of the units. It has
not been our policy to invalidate as inappropriate
historically established units unless required to do so
by the dictates of the Act or other compelling cir-
cumstances.8 We find no such circumstance merely
7 See United States Gypsum Company, 157 NLRB 652 (1966).
8 See , e.g., The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 153 NLRB
1549 (1965). Harvey Russel, 145 NLRB 1486, 1488 (1964). Cf. Retail Clerks
Union Local No. 324, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO (Vin-
893
because one party at a much later date challenges the
continuing appropriateness of the unit.
Nor do we find merit in the contention that the
Act precludes such units in this industry. Rather, in
the health care industry, the Board permits the par-
ties "the broadest possible latitude to mutually define
the context in which collective bargaining should
take place." 9 While such mutually defined units may
not be the same as the units which the Board may
have found had the matter not been agreed upon by
the parties, the Board is reluctant to disturb bargain-
ing units in the health care industry which have been
mutually agreed upon by the parties so long as such
units do not contravene the Act or established Board
policy.10
Accordingly, for the aforementioned- reasons, we
conclude that the instant petitions are without merit
and we shall therefore dismiss the petitions.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions herein be,
and they hereby are, dismissed.
cent Drugs No 3, Inc.), 144 NLRB 1247, 1252 (1963).
9Otis Hospital, Inc, 219 NLRB 164 (1975). See also the discussion of
the legislative history of the health care amendments in Otis which indicates
that Congress intended to permit employers and labor organizations "the
broadest possible latitude in agreeing on unit compositions."
10Ibid We therefore reject the Employer-Petitioners' argument that the
instant case is controlled by the decision in Shriners Hospital, supra, where
the parties had not engaged in a long history of continuous and harmonious
collective-bargaining relations and there was no background of voluntarily
established units.