Vancouver Memorial Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 73 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

VANCOUVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 73
Vancouver Memorial Hospital and Service Employees
Local Union No. 92 . Case AO-167
July 10, 1975
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING,
JENKINS, AND PENELLO
This is a petition filed on February 5, 1975, by
Vancouver Memorial Hospital, herein called the Em-
ployer, for an Advisory Opinion, in conformity with
Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations , Series 8 , as amended , seeking to de-
termine whether the Board would assert jurisdiction
over the Employer. On February 12, 1975, Service
Employees Local Union No. 92, herein called the
Union, filed a response to the petition, with an at-
tached exhibit. Thereafter, on February 18, 1975, the
Employer filed a brief in support of its petition.
In pertinent part the petition, and brief in support
thereof, and the Union's response allege as follows:
(1) There is pending in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington for Clark County, herein called
the State Court, an action, Docket No. 58655, filed
by the Union, alleging discriminatory wage and ben-
efit adjustments in violation of state law.
(2) The Employer is a nonprofit Washington cor-
poration engaged in providing health care services at
its hospital facility located in Vancouver, Washing-
ton. During the 1973 calendar year, a representative
period , its total gross revenues from all sources ex-
ceeded $500,000, and it purchased goods valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located out-
side the State of Washington and caused said goods
to be shipped directly to its Vancouver, Washington,
facility.
(3) The Union admits the above commerce data,
but argues that the Board has jurisdiction over the
Employer regarding only those acts which occurred
on or subsequent to August 25, 1974, the effective
date of Public Law 93-360, which amended the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act to include nonprofit hos-
pitals within the Board's jurisdiction.
(4) The State Court has made no findings with re-
spect to the aforesaid commerce data.
(5) No representation or unfair labor practice pro-
ceeding involving the same labor dispute is pending
before the Board. An unfair labor practice charge,
Case 36-CA-2662, was filed by the Union on or
about December 17, 1974, alleging that the Employer
discriminatorily granted wage increases to its non-
union employees, which charge was dismissed by the
Regional Director on the ground that the conduct
alleged occurred at a time when the Employer, a
nonprofit hospital, was exempt from the coverage of
the Act. The Regional Director advised that, by his
refusal to issue a complaint, he was not passing on
the issue of whether the Employer's business opera-
tions met established Board standards for asserting
jurisdiction over it.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opin-
ion that:
1. The Employer is a nonprofit Washington cor-
poration engaged in providing health care services at
its hospital facility located in Vancouver, Washing-
ton.
2. Recent amendments to the National Labor Re-
lations Act, supra, extended the Board's jurisdiction
to nonprofit hospitals. The Board has previously as-
serted jurisdiction over proprietary hospitals which
come within its statutory jurisdiction and have an
annual gross volume of $250,000.1 As the Employer
here meets our basic jurisdictional standard and does
a gross volume in excess of $500,000 which meets any
of our existing health care standards, and as its out-
of-state purchases bring its operations within our
statutory jurisdiction, we conclude that it would ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein?
3. With respect to the Regional Director's refusal
to issue a complaint in Case 36-CA-2662, which the
Union argues renders this proceeding moot, we find
that the Regional Director's ruling was based on the
fact that the Board lacked subject matter jurisdiction
at the time the alleged conduct occurred, and his re-
fusal to issue a complaint did not resolve the under-
lying issue of the Board's jurisdiction over the Em-
ployer on or subsequent to the effective date of
Public Law 93-360. Accordingly, the petition herein
is properly before the Board.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section
102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, that,
on the allegation presented herein, the Board would
assert jurisdiction over the operations of the Employ-
er with respect to labor disputes cognizable under
Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act, which occurred on or
subsequent to August 25, 1974, the effective date of
Public Law 93-360.
1 Butte Medical Properties, d/b/a Medical Center Hospital, 168 NLRB 266
(1967).
2 See Yale-New Haven Hospital, 214 NLRB No. 34 (1974): East Oakland
Community Health Alliance , Inc., 218 NLRB No. 193 (1975).
219 NLRB No. 15