Anne Arundel General Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 848 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Annapolis Emergency Hospital Association, Inc.
d/b/a Anne Arundel General Hospital and Mary-
land Nurses Association , Inc., a/w The American
Nurses Association , Inc., Petitioner. Case 5-RC-9128
May 7, 1975
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held on October 21, 1974, before Hearing Officer
Hollace S. Jackson and a further hearing was held -on
January 9, 1975, before Hearing Officer Jacqueline
Gardner.' Following the hearings and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, the instant case was transferred
to the National Labor Relations Board for decision.
The Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs.
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 reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearings and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the National
Labor Relations Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Employer contends, and the Petitioner denies,
that the Petitioner, herein also called the MNA, is not
a bona fide labor organization, within the meaning of
the Act, because it is allegedly influenced, dominated,
or controlled by supervisors. The bargaining unit
herein sought comprises the Employer's registered
nurses.
The record reveals that the Petitioner herein-is 1 of
18 state affiliates of the American Nursing Association,
herein called the ANA. Membership in MNA derives
from seven geographical Maryland affiliates known as
districts, including District 3, the area in which the
Employer's hospital is located. MNA requires that
,each district's membership be limited to licensed regu-
1 At the imtial,October 21, 1974, hearing, the Employer contested the
Petitioner's status as a labor organization The Regional Director issued his
Decision and Direction of Election on November 18, 1974, finding that the
Petitioner was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. There-
after, the Employer and the Petitioner filed requests for review of the Re-
gional Director's decision. The Board directed that the hearing be reopened
to take evidence on the issues raised by the requests for review, and the later
hearing on January 9, 1975, was held for that purpose
lar nurses. Apart from its district affiliates, the MNA
organization also includes a board of directors, stand-
ing advisory committees not here involved,.2 profes-
sional councils, and 18 professional chapters. The
board of directors is comprised of the six MNA offi-
cers, a representative from each district, and a represen-
tative from each of the two professional councils.
Of the two councils, the council on professional em-
ployment activities, herein called the Council,2 has as
its main purpose the development and guidance of the
professional chapters, hereinafter described. The duties
of the Council include the development and implemen-
tation of the Petitioner's policy on professional chap-
ters and employment level matters, the promotion and
establishment of employment conditions for appropri-
ate groups within each of the clinical divisions, and the
study and evaluation of the economic position of the
nursing profession in Maryland and the dissemination
of the results thereof to nurse practitioners, administra-
tors, and employees. Membership in the Council is
limited to the chairman of each of the 18 professional
chapters.'
According to MNA's bylaws, the professional chap-
ters are organized at the employer level for the purpose
of effectuating MNA's policies. In that regard, MNA
has delegated to them its entire authority over collec-
tive bargaining. At the Employer's hospital, the profes-
sional chapter is identical in scope with the unit herein
sought and is designated "The Registered Nurses of
Anne Arundel General Hospital, Professional Chapter
of the Maryland Nurses Association, Inc." Neither the
ANA nor MNA, or its councils, districts, or any of its
other components, is authorized to assert control over
the professional chapter in collective bargaining, or
over the results of such bargaining.
In regard to the Employer's contention that the Peti-
tioner is subject to the influence, domination, or control
by supervisors, although the parties did stipulate that
the Petitioner's officers and directors include supervi-
sors as defined in the Act,' they further stipulated
that no supervisors hired by the Employer are included
as its officers and directors. Furthermore, none of the
Employer's supervisors serve on the, Council of Profes-
sional , Employment Activities, inasmuch as the policy
of the Anne Arundel Professional Chapter, which is
represented on the Council, excludes supervisors.
The Anne Arundel Hospital Professional Chapter
has a negotiating committee which is elected by the
general membership of the Employer's employees. The
members take part in the bargaining process by select-
2 The other council is the council on practice, which is primarily responsi-
ble for the interpretation and implementation of professional standards of
practice, education, and nursing service
3 The Council's interest in the professional chapters includes the exercise
of fiscal controls over their finances
4 Approximately one-third of MNA's membership are supervisors-
217 NLRB No. 148
ANNE ARUNDEL GENERAL HOSPITAL 849
ing the bargaining items and collaborating with the
negotiating committee, and, according to uncontro-
verted testimony , an agreement , if reached, would be
ratified by the membership . Should the Petitioner be
certified , the membership of the Professional Chapter,
working with the negotiating committee, would deter-
mine the bargaining goals and issues.
In the above circumstances , and inasmuch as the
Petitioner, through its Anne Arundel Professional
Chapter, has delegated its collective-bargaining au-
thority respecting the Employer 's employees to its
Anne Arundel Hospital Professional Chapter, in-
dependent of ANA or other MNA influences, and as
that chapter admits no supervisors to its membership,
and has no employer supervisors as its officers or direc-
tors, we find, contrary to the Employer, that the Peti-
tioner, in its collective-bargaining process is not subject
to the influence , domination , or control of supervisors
as defined in the Act . Accordingly , and inasmuch as
the Petitioner otherwise satisfies the requirements set
forth in Section 2(5) of the Act, we find that it is a bona
fide labor organization within the meaning of the
Acts
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9(c) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the
parties, that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time registered
nurses employed by the Employer at its Franklin
and Cathedral Streets, Annapolis, Maryland, loca-
tion, but excluding all office clerical employees, all
other employees, guards, patient care supervisors,
evening and night supervisors, the LV_ therapy
supervisor , coordinators , and all other supervisors
as defined in the Act.
5. The parties disagree as to the unit placement of
seven PRN nurses, whom the Petitioner would include
and whom the Employer would exclude as casual em-
ployees. The PRN's normally do not work pursuant to
a prearranged schedule , but are generally on an on-call
basis. They are, however, staff registered nurses who
work throughout all of the various hospital units and
perform the same functions , in the same manner and
under the same working conditions and supervision, as
the other staff nurses and wear the same uniform and
identification. They generally appear to work a sub-
stantial number of hours per week, during most of the
Employer's pay periods, and some of them may in fact
work for longer periods of time and on a more frequent
basis than the regular part -time nurses , whom the par-
ties would include in the unit.
The only differences between the PRN's and the
full-time staff nurses, apart from the, hours worked, are
that they do not work according to prearranged
schedules and do not share in the Employer's fringe
benefit program. The Board, however, has found these
factors insufficient to warrant the unit exclusion of
part-time employees who would otherwise qualify for
inclusion in the unit.'
As it appears that the PRN's work on a regular,
though unscheduled, basis covering most pay periods
during the year, perform the same tasks, in the same
areas as the registered nurses who are included in the
unity and thus share a strong community of interest
with them, we shall include the PRN's as regular part-
time registered nurses in the unity herein found appro-
priate.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
5 Carle Clinic Association , 192 NLRB 512 (1971 ); International Paper
Company, Southern Kraft Division, 172 NLRB 933 (1968)
6 See Scoa, Inc., 140 NLRB 1379 (1963); Quigley Industries, inc., 180
NLRB 486 (1969).