223 N.L.R.B. 638 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

St. Vincent's Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 2, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 638 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD St. Vincent's Hospital and Local 68, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case 22-RC-6277 April 2, 1976 DECISION ON REVIEW On December 9, 1974, the Regional Director for Region 22 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found appropriate and directed an election in a unit consisting of all boiler operators employed by the Employer. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended , the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision together with a supporting brief, asserting that the Regional Director erred in direct- ing an election in a unit restricted to boiler operators. On June 3, 1975, the National Labor Relations Board by telegraphic order granted the request for review and stayed the election pending a decision on review. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: The Employer is a nonprofit New Jersey corpora- tion engaged in providing health care services at its Montclair, New Jersey, hospital. The Petitioner sought a unit consisting of the boiler operators and the maintenance department employees or, in the al- ternate, separate units of each group of employees. The Regional Director concluded that the mainte- nance employees should not be placed in a unit sepa- rate from the housekeeping employees and directed an election in a unit limited to boiler operators. The Employer, in its request for review, contends that the boiler operators do not possess a community of inter- est sufficiently separate from other employees to con- stitute a separate appropriate unit. However, we find, in accord with the Regional Director, that the boiler operators herein constitute an appropriate unit. The plant operations department consists of four boiler operators who maintain three low-pressure boilers and one high-pressure boiler. The low-pres- sure boilers provide heat and hot water, and the high- pressure boiler provides steam for a sterilizer. One low-pressure boiler is located in a separate building away from the Employer's main facility. The other boilers are all located in the basement of the main building in the boilerroom which is separated from the rest of the building by five doors. Boiler opera- tors spend approximately 90 percent of their time in the boilerroom and are responsible for checking gauges, meters , and water levels; adding solvents to the water in the boilers; cleaning the boilerroom; and making all minor repairs. Independent contractors are hired to perform major repairs. During the 10 percent of their time away from the boilerroom, the operators inspect hot water lines, radiators, thermo- stats, and valves throughout the Employer's facility. All the operators employed by the Employer are licensed by the State of New Jersey to operate the high-pressure boiler. Other employees do not per- form operator functions and do not enter the boiler- room. The operators perform all maintenance and cleaning in that area. Although boiler operators share a timeclock and supervision with maintenance employees, the operators are on different shifts from other employees. Unlike maintenance employees who work one shift from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., the opera- tors are on duty on three shifts. Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole, we find that the boiler operators constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining. Boiler opera- tors perform a function intrinsically different from what other employees do and are licensed; they work in a separate area with only minimal contact with other employees; and there is no interchange with other employees. In these circumstances, we shall ap- ply our traditional standards which have long recog- nized that units of licensed boilerroom employees may constitute a separate appropriate unit.' For the reasons above we affirm the Regional Di- rector and hereby remand this proceeding to him for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, provided that the payroll period for determining eligibility in this case shall be that ending immediately preceding the date of this Decision on Review. [Excelsior footnote omit- ted from publication.] CHAIRMAN MURPHY, concurring: I agree with my colleagues that a separate unit of boiler operators is appropriate in this case. The unit sought herein is a traditional powerhouse unit made up of stationary engineers who are licensed by the State, work in an area from which other categories of employees are excluded, and do not interchange with other employees. Such a unit is customarily found appropriate in other industries as a craftlike tradi- tional unit.2 Further, such a unit includes power- house maintenance employees who perform mainte- nance and repair work on any equipment located outside the powerhouse building? I agree with my colleagues that similar treatment should be accorded 1 See New England Confectionery Company, 108 NLRB 728 (1954). 2 E.g., St. Regis Paper Company, 104 NLRB 411, 414-415 (1953). 3 St. Regis Paper Company, 130 NLRB 1235 ( 1961). 223 NLRB No. 98 ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL to a group of stationary engineers in a health care facility where they are performing the usual func- tions of powerhouse employees under conditions which demonstrate that they are a homogeneous group with common interests separate from those of other employees. Since that is the situation in this case, the unit finding here accords with Board prece- dent. In The Jewish Hospital Association of Cincinnati d/b/a Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati, 223 NLRB 614 issued simultaneously with this Decision, I would have found appropriate a separate unit of employees in the maintenance department. My conclusion therein was based on the facts of that case. In sum, I will continue to find appropriate a tradi- tional powerhouse unit or a maintenance department unit in a hospital or other health care facility where such a unit is sought and shown to be appropriate on the facts. MEMBER PENELLO, concurring: I agree with my colleages that the boiler operators involved herein constitute an appropriate unit. My agreement, however, is based on the following analy- sis. In Shriners Hospitals for Crippled. Children,4 the Board 5 found a unit of stationary engineers to be inappropriate and dismissed the petition seeking to represent them. There, the five stationary engineers involved, in addition to maintaining a 7-day-per- week, 24-hour-per-day watch operating and main- taining the boilers, spent a substantial amount of time performing carpentry, plumbing, and electrical duties as part of the general maintenance of the hos- pital and its facilities. The areas in which the station- ary engineers worked included, inter alia, the laun- dry, kitchen, nursing, and surgery areas where they came into daily contact with other employees as- signed to those locations. When time allowed, the stationary engineers therein manufactured spare parts and made patient-related equipment. One sta- tionary engineer, on duty during the night shift, actu- ally made security rounds during the course of his shift. Occasionally, on the night shift, the stationary engineer was asked to help move patients. In Shrin- ers, there was no evidence indicating that any of the stationary engineers were, in fact, licensed, and the record therein disclosed that none of them had ever had apprenticeship training in boiler maintenance. Although the stationary engineers were separately supervised and had no interchange with other em- ployees, the majority opinion relied heavily on the 4217 NLRB No. 138 (1975). 5 Members Kennedy and Penello; Member Jenkins concurring; and Chairman Murphy and Member Fanning dissenting in part. 639 fact that all employees shared a fundamental com- munity of interest in the operation of the hospital, and that there was substantial contact among them because of the highly integrated and interdependent nature of the employer's operations. In making the unit determination in Shriners, the majority, of which I was a part, considered the tradi- tional criteria used in making such determinations. However, it did so, not under ordinary circumstances existing in other industries, but in light of the con- gressional mandate to avoid proliferation of bargain- ing units in the health care.industry. As stated in the majority opinion in Shriners: In adopting the hospital amendments, Congress recognized that labor relations in the health care industry require special considerations due to the uniqueness of that industry in terms of the services it provides to the sick, infirm, or aged. It is in the context of the peculiar nature of the industry and the congressional mandate against proliferation of bargaining units that we have weighed all of the criteria traditionally consid- ered when making a unit determination and have, on balance, concluded that it is proper to place special significance on the high degree of integration of operations performed throughout a health care facility. In the conclusionary section of the majority opin- ion in Shriners, certain language appears which could be interpreted to mean that I would never, under any circumstances, find appropriate a unit of mainte- nance employees in the health care industry. While I am in complete agreement with the result reached in Shriners for all the reasons stated therein, I would like to reexamine at this time the broad conclu- sionary language used therein which appears to pre- clude my finding appropriate a separate craft main- tenance unit under any circumstances. Since the date of issuance of the Decision in Shrin- ers, the Board has held oral argument on the issue of the appropriateness and scope of a separate mainte- nance unit in the health care industry.6 Now, after carefully considering the presentations made by able counsel at the oral arguments, I am of the view that a craft maintenance unit may be appropriate when, viewed in light of all the criteria traditionally consid- ered in determining the appropriateness of mainte- nance units generally, its establishment does not con- flict with the congressional mandate against proliferation of bargaining units in the health care industry.' This standard, which is a more rigid one than is applied in other industries, can be met when 6 Oral arguments were heard on September 9, 1975. r S. Rept. 93-766, 93d Cong. 2d sess. 5 (1974); also H. Rept. 93-1051, 93d Cong., 2d sess. 7 (1974). 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the unit sought, unlike the situation in Shriners, is composed of licensed craftsmen engaged in tradi- tional craft work , which is performed in a separate and distinct location apart from other employees in the health care facility . Normally, such employees do not perform other services throughout the health care facility, as was the case in Shriners, and there is, at most , minimal transfer or interchange to and from the craft unit. In finding , in agreement with my colleagues, that the boiler operators herein constitute an appropriate unit , I am satisfied that the standard set forth above has been met. The boiler operators are all licensed craftsmen engaged in traditional craft work, which is performed in a separate and distinct location apart from other employees in the health care facility. They, unlike the stationary engineers in Shriners, do not perform other services throughout the health care facility, and, in addition, there is no transfer or inter- change to and from the craft unit. Accordingly, I concur in the result reached by my colleagues. MEMBER WALTHER, concurring: I agree with my colleagues that the boiler opera- tors in this case constitute a separate appropriate unit . They are all licensed craftsmen, they are engag- ing in traditional craft-type work, they work in a sep- arate and distinct location rarely performing services in other areas of the hospital, and there is no employ- ee transfer or interchange to and from the boiler room. In view of these separate and distinct interests, and in agreement with the reasoning more fully set forth in Member Penello's concurring opinion, I agree that they constitute an appropriate unit.