Victor Valley Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 977 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

VICTOR VALLEY HOSPITAL
Doctor's Community Hospital of Victor Valley, d/b/a
Victor.Valley Hospital and Victor Valley Registered
Nurses' Association, United Nurses Association of
California, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-2979
September 30, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On January 7, 1975, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 31 issued a Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding in which he found inappropriate
a unit limited to registered nurses. Thereafter, in ac-
cordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Petitioner filed a Request for Review
of the Regional Director's decision.
On May 16, 1975, by telegraphic order, the request
for review was granted. Subsequently, the Petitioner
and the Employer filed briefs on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
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 California corpora-
tion operating a hospital in Victorville, California,
where it employs approximately 211 employees as-
signed to 13 departments, including the nursing de-
partment. Of these, 38 employees are registered nurs-
es (RN's) employed in the nursing department.
Petitioner contends that a unit composed solely of
registered nurses is an appropriate unit. The Employ-
er contends that if the RN's are found to be profes-
sional employees (which the Regional Director found
them to be), they must be included in a unit with all
other professional employees at the hospital. The Re-
gional Director found that other professional em-
ployees employed by the Employer include pharma-
cists, the physical therapist, and the therapeutic
-dietician.' The Regional Director found that the
smallest appropriate unit embracing registered nurses
is a unit of all professional employees. Since Peti-
tioner stated at the hearing that it was not willing to
participate in an election broader than a unit com-
posed solely of registered nurses, the Regional Direc-
i Although the Employer had employed a social worker in the past and
was seeking a replacement at the time of the hearing, the Regional Director
did not decide the professional status of the social worker since the position
was at that time vacant.
977
tor dismissed the petition?
Registered nurses in California are required to
graduate from one of three programs: A 2-year asso-
ciate of arts program consisting mainly of classroom
education, usually at a junior college, with a small
amount of practical experience; a 3-year diploma
program primarily administered within the hospital
with affiliated college courses; or a 4- to 5-year pro-
gram administered by a college or a university, lead-
ing to a bachelor's degree. A graduate of any of these
programs is entitled to take the examination adminis-
tered by the State Board of Nursing Examiners.
Upon passing the examination, a graduate of any of
these programs becomes a registered nurse. As found
by the Regional Director, the hospital's 38 RN's
oversee and coordinate total patient care in the hos-
pital, performing a variety of professional nursing
duties, including signing physicians' orders, adminis-
tering injections and medications, and beginning in-
travenous transfusions. The director of nursing serv-
ices supervises nurses but does not appear to
supervise any other professional employees.
Based upon the foregoing facts and our recent
finding in Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento, Inc., 217
NLRB No. 131 (1975), we find that a unit limited to
registered nurses is appropriate. As we stated in Mer-
cy Hospitals "registered nurses possess, among them-
selves, interests evidencing a greater degree of sepa-
rateness than those possessed by most other
professional employees in the health care industries.
These distinct interests derive not only from the pe-
culiar role and responsibilities of registered nurses in
the health care industries, but also from an impres-
sive history of exclusive representation and collective
bargaining." 3 In accordance with the Joint Commit-
tee on Accreditation of Hospitals, the Employer
maintains a separately administered department of
nursing, under the direction of a director of nursing.
The employees in the unit sought are required to pos-
sess the academic accreditation and uniform national
licensing which is typically required of members of
their profession. As in Mercy Hospitals, we are mind-
ful of the congressional concern for the undue prolif-
eration of bargaining units; but find, nevertheless,
that the singularity of interest possessed by registered
2 Although there is in issue the supervisory status of shift supervisors and
charge nurses , the Regional Director found it unnecessary to consider this
issue since he dismissed the petition.
9 In its brief, the Employer requests that the instant case be remanded to
the Regional Director to reopen the hearing for the purpose of adducing
evidence as to RN bargaining history However, this Board takes recogni-
tion of the fact that it has in the past frequently established separate nurse
units for collective-bargaining purposes (See, e .g , Doctors' Hospital of Mo-
desto, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises, Inc.,
193 NLRB 833 (1971), enfd. 489 F.2d 772 (C.A. 9, 1973).) Accordingly, we
find it unnecessary to remand on this issue and, therefore , deny such mo-
tion.
220 NLRB No. 149
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nurses compels recognition a Accordingly, based up-
on the foregoing, we find that the registered nurses
are entitled to be represented in a separate bargain-
ing unit for the purposes of collective bargaining and
shall direct, herein, an election in the aforementioned
unit.
The Regional Director found it unnecessary to
reach the issue of supervisory status of the shift su-
pervisors and the charge nurses since he found the
requested unit inappropriate. After a careful exami-
nation of the record, we find that the shift supervi-
sors must be excluded from the unit as supervisory
personnel, but the charge nurses do not possess su-
pervisory authority and, consequently, must be in-
cluded in the unit.
The shift supervisors evaluate employees' perfor-
mances, make recommendations for wage increases
and discipline, effectively recommend hiring and fir-
ing of employees under their immediate supervision,
can call in or send home employees, and can issue
oral or written reprimands. Accordingly, we find that
these employees must be excluded from the unit as
supervisors.
4 In its brief, the Employer argues that it has contracted out its pharmacy
and, therefore , no longer employs pharmacists . It contends , therefore , that if
the RN unit is found appropriate, a residual unit of professional employees
would result in unwarranted fragmentations since there would be a minimal
number of non-RN professionals . We are not persuaded that this consider-
ation renders the RN unit inappropriate , particularly since the hospital's
administrator testified that the hospital currently had an application with
the Inland Counties Comprehensive Health Planning Agency to build a
larger hospital which would replace the 60 beds with 200 beds and, corre-
spondingly increase its complement of professional employees , including
pharmacists.
There are about 15 charge nurses responsible for
the total care of the patient and the unit to which the
charge nurse is assigned. The director of nursing
services testified that the shift supervisor is the imme-
diate supervisor of the charge nurse and serves as a
supervisory level between the charge nurse and the
director. Normally, if a charge nurse has a problem
with an employee under her immediate direction, the
charge nurse discusses this with the shift supervisor
who makes an independent investigation of the com-
plaints. The shift supervisor, not the charge nurse, is
expected to prepare a written evaluation of an em-
ployee under the charge nurse but she may consult
with the charge nurse who may make an oral recom-
mendation. A shift supervisor is present on each shift
and, in the event the shift supervisor is on vacation, a
"relief supervisor," who is not a charge nurse, rou-
tinely performs her duties. One charge nurse testified
that during her 3-1/2 year experience as a charge
nurse, she had never filled out any employee time
schedules, had never reassigned an employee if there
was a vacant spot to be filled, did not possess the
independent authority to call in personnel in the
event that there was an absence, did not have 24-
hour responsibility for the floor for staffing, did not
go to department head meetings, and did not evalu-
ate personnel in writing. Based upon the above facts,
we find the charge nurses do not possess supervisory
authority within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act.'
[Direction of Election and Excelsior fp. omitted
from publication.]
3 The Trustees of Noble Hospital, 218 NLRB No. 221 (1975).