St. Luke's Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1978

234 N.L.R.B. 130 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
St. Luke's Hospital and Engineers & Scientists of
California, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-14283
January 9, 1978
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On August 12, 1977, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 20 issued his Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which
he found appropriate a unit limited to all unrepre-
sented technical employees employed by the Em-
ployer at its San Francisco, California, facility.
Thereafter, in accordance with the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Employer filed a timely request for
review, contending, inter alia, that such single-em-
ployer unit is inappropriate as its unrepresented
technicals are residual to an established multiem-
ployer unit which includes other of its technicals.
By telegraphic order dated September 7, 1977, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the request
for review as to the unit finding, denied review in all
other respects, and stayed the election pending
decision on review.' Thereafter, the Board received a
brief on review from the Employer and amici curiae
briefs from the Associated Hospitals of San Francis-
co and the East Bay; Alexian Brothers Hospital of
San Jose, Inc.; and The American Hospital Associa-
tion.
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 has considered the entire record in this
proceeding, including all briefs submitted herein, 2
with respect to the issues under review and finds that
no question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of the unrepresented technical em-
ployees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for
the following reasons:
The Employer is a nonprofit, short-term, acute-
care hospital in San Francisco, California. Since
Member Murphy dissented.
2 No briefs were filed by either labor organization.
3 Hospital and Institutional Workers Union, Local 250. SEIU, AFL-
CIo.
I Senior Licensed Vocational Nurse, Licensed Vocational Nurse, Obstet-
ncal Technician. Surgical Technician. Orthopedic Technician, and Psychiat-
nc Technician. The record does not show whether the Employer has
employees in all these classifications or the number of its contractual
technical employees.
I X-ray technician, respiratory therapy technician. histology technician,
cytology technician, physical therapy technician, and pharmacy technician.
The parties stipulated to the technical status of the first four classifications
234 NLRB No. 16
August 1960, it has been a member of the Affiliated
Hospitals of San Francisco (herein called the Affilia-
tion), which represents a multiemployer group of
eight hospitals in the San Francisco Bay area in "the
formulation of standards respecting wages and con-
ditions of employment, the negotiation of collective
bargaining labor contracts, the interpretation of such
contracts, and the adjustment of labor disputes." The
Employer employs approximately 800 employees,
most of whom are represented by unions other than
the Petitioner under one of five multiemployer
affiliation contracts. Since 1941, the Intervenor3 has
represented service, maintenance, and some techni-
cal employees of affiliation members. The 1977-79
contract covers approximately 2,000 to 2,200 em-
ployees, including 575 employees in 5 technical
classifications at the member hospitals.4
The Petitioner sought a unit of all-some 11-
radiologic technologists (X-ray technicians) em-
ployed by the Employer. The Acting Regional
Director enlarged upon this request to find appropri-
ate a unit of all the Employer's unrepresented
technical employees, some 37 employees in 6 techni-
cal classifications.5 He did so because "[t]he Board
has not . . . found appropriate any fragment of a
technical unit or any unit consisting of less than all
unrepresented technical employees of a hospital-em-
ployer."
In finding appropriate, contrary to the Employer, a
unit limited to the unrepresented technicals at the
Employer's hospital, the Acting Regional Director
stated that "[t]he fact that there is a history of
multiemployer bargaining for other employees, as in
the instant case, does not preclude the establishment
of an appropriate single-employer unit of unrepre-
sented employees in a different category." However,
we disagree with his application of this principle to
the facts of this case.6 On the contrary, we agree with
the Employer and the amici curiae that this case is
controlled by the holding in The Los Angeles Statler
Hilton Hotel,7 which was restated in Pacific Drive-In
Theatres Corp.,8 as follows:
An established bargaining history on a multi-
employer basis will determine the scope required
for a unit of previously unrepresented employees
if those employees are in excluded fringe classifi-
and were in agreement that the EKG technician, EEG technician, and
darkroom technician are not technicals.
6 We regard Macy's San Francisco and Selignan & Latz, Inc., jointly, 120
NLRB 69 (1958), cited by the Acting Regional Director, as clearly
distinguishable on its facts. In that case, the Board found that beauty salon
employees of a lessee constituted a different category from department store
employees of the lessor and were a separate appropriate unit, despite a
multiemployer contract covering department store employees, excluding
salon employees.
7 129 NLRB 1349, 1351-52(1961).
s 167NLRB661 (1967).
130
ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL
cations which otherwise lack homogeneity, cohe-
siveness, or separate identity, and are merely
residual to the main body of employees in the
established unit.
The unrepresented technical employees herein do
not, contrary to the Acting Regional Director's
finding, constitute a "different category" from the
Employer's represented technical employees. Nor do
they constitute a homogeneous, separately identifi-
able group with internal cohesiveness, within the
meaning of Los Angeles Statler. Thus, they work in
different units which are physically separated from
each other, are variously supervised, and have the
same terms and conditions of employment as other
noncontractual employees of the hospital. They have
no greater community of interest with one another
than they have with the Employer's represented
technical employees or with their counterparts em-
ployed by other members of the affiliation and
similarly unrepresented. Under these circumstances,
the unrepresented technical employees herein are
residual to the multiemployer unit which includes the
represented technical employees. An appropriate
residual unit of such employees must be coextensive
in scope with the multiemployer unit and not merely
coextensive with the particular employer's operations
and thus only a segment of the residual unit.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
131