Trumbull Memorial Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 3, 2003

338 N.L.R.B. 900 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 900
Trumbull Memorial Hospital and Western Reserve
Personnel, Inc. and Service Employees Interna-
tional Union Local 627, Petitioner. Case 8–RC–
16381
April 3, 2003
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND WALSH
On May 28, 2002, the Regional Director for Region 8
issued a Decision and Direction of Election in which he
found that the telephone operators employed in the joint
project known as the Trumbull Answering Service (TAS)
constituted an appropriate voting group and directed an
election to determine their inclusion in an existing unit of
Trumbull Memorial Hospital (TMH) business group em-
ployees already represented by the Petitioner. Thereaf-
ter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, TMH filed a timely request for
review of the Regional Director’s decision. On June 19,
2002, the Board granted TMH’s request for review.
Having carefully considered the entire record in this
proceeding, we conclude, contrary to the Regional Direc-
tor, that the TAS employees do not share a sufficient
community of interest with the TMH business office em-
ployees to warrant their inclusion in the business office
unit.
TMH is an Ohio corporation operating an acute care
facility in Warren, Ohio. It is a fully owned subsidiary
of Forum Health (Forum). Western Reserve Personnel
(WRP) is an Ohio corporation providing employees to
companies such as TMH. WRP has an office and place
of business in Cortland, Ohio.
The Petitioner and TMH are parties to a collective-
bargaining agreement in which TMH recognizes the Peti-
tioner as the exclusive representative of its business
clerical employees, including those who work in infor-
mation technology, accounting, and as telephone opera-
tors.
TMH created TAS in 1989 as an answering service for
its doctors, and TAS has taken on additional clients since
then. TAS has never directly hired the employees who
work for it. At first, TAS was staffed by TMH employ-
ees employed through Home Healthcare, a division of
TMH. TMH later decided to staff TAS with employees
supplied by WRP. There is no written contract between
TMH and WRP covering the staffing of TAS.
TAS is physically located at TMH in the business
group area. The TAS employees work in a room adja-
cent to, and connected by an open portal with, the room
used by bargaining unit telephone operators directly em-
ployed by TMH. The main duties of TAS operators are
to take messages for clients, type them into a computer,
and then deliver the messages by pager, fax machine, or
telephone to the clients. TMH operators take calls from
the general public and forward those calls within TMH.
Unlike the TAS operators, the TMH operators do not
necessarily take messages.
The midnight TMH operator handles TAS calls from 1
to 5 a.m. TMH has a policy against employees working
for both TMH and TAS, although one exception has been
made for a longtime employee.
The Regional Director found that TMH and WRP were
joint employers of the petitioned-for employees.1 He
then applied the analytical framework articulated by the
Board in M.B. Sturgis, Inc.2 He found that the peti-
tioned-for employees share a sufficient community of
interest with the TMH business office employees to war-
rant inclusion in that unit. Based on our review of the
record, we reverse the Regional Director’s community-
of-interest finding and therefore dismiss the petition.
In concluding that the petitioned-for TAS operators
share a sufficient community of interest with the TMH
telephone operators, the Regional Director relied princi-
pally on his finding that Karen Brooks was the “key su-
pervisor” with respect to both groups of operators. Al-
though we agree with the Regional Director’s finding
that Brooks supervises the TAS employees, the record
does not establish that she supervises the TMH operators.
Brooks was employed by TMH until January 1, 2000.
Since that time, she has been employed by Forum as its
voice communications administrator, with responsibility
for all telephone systems throughout Forum. Forum has
about 4500 employees at several different locations.
Brooks’ responsibilities include auditing, billing proce-
dures, maintenance contracts, and long distance services.
The record is silent as to the supervisory structure over
the TMH operators. Although the Regional Director
found that Brooks maintains responsibility for the TMH
operators and that she maintains supervisory oversight of
them, the record is insufficient to support those findings.
Brooks did formerly supervise the TMH operators, but
the record does not establish that she continues to do so.
Further, although TMH is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Forum, there is no finding or contention that they are a
single employer.

1 No party has filed a request for review of this finding.
2 331 NLRB 1298 (2000). Chairman Battista and Member Schaum-
ber accept arguendo the validity of Sturgis. That case teaches that there
would be no statutory bar to including the joint employees of TMH and
WRP with the employees of TMH. However, as shown below, there is
an insufficient community of interest between the two groups.
338 NLRB No. 132
TRUMBULL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 901
It is true, as the Regional Director found, that the two
groups of employees have similar skills and work in
close proximity to each other, and that there is some in-
terchange between the two groups. The Regional Direc-
tor also correctly pointed out that the employees share
certain privileges (for example, a cafeteria discount and
parking privileges) and wear TMH-issued pagers and the
same type of identification badges.
In our view, however, these factors are outweighed by
others. Thus, as noted, the principal factor relied on by
the Regional Director, that of common supervision, is not
supported by the record. Further, as the Regional Direc-
tor noted, the two groups of employees receive dissimilar
wages and benefits.3 In addition to differences in wages,
the TAS employees are not covered by TMH’s retire-
ment plan, by its hospitalization plan, by its vacation

3 The record is not clear as to the role of each employer in setting the
wages and benefits for the TAS employees.
policies, by its disciplinary rules, by its seniority rules, or
by its job posting rules.
Further, as noted above, the two groups of employees
do not serve the same clientele. Thus, TMH operators
serve primarily the hospital and its patients and employ-
ees. TAS employees serve doctors on the hospital staff
and other clients not connected to the hospital. We also
note TMH’s general policy against employees working
for both TMH and TAS.
In these circumstances, we conclude that the TAS em-
ployees do not share a sufficient community of interest
with the TMH business group employees to be included
in the existing bargaining unit.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, we find that the peti-
tioned-for unit may not be included in the existing unit of
TMH business group employees. Accordingly, we dis-
miss the petition.