Brooklyn Hospital Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1992

309 N.L.R.B. 1187 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

1187
309 NLRB No. 175
BROOKLYN HOSPITAL
1 The representation petitions were consolidated for hearing with
the unfair labor practice complaints in Cases 29–CA–13793, 29–CA–
13813, 29–CA–13842, and 29–CA–13933 and a hearing was opened
on May 22, 1989. At the close of the hearing, the judge severed the
representation petitions from the unfair labor practice cases, and the
representation cases were transferred directly to the Board for deci-
sion. For a full discussion of the procedural history, see the decision
of Judge Steven Davis in the companion unfair labor practice case.
309 NLRB 1163, issued this day.
2 The petition in Case 29–RC–7150 states that the Petitioner seeks
to represent all professionals. However, the Petitioner indicated on
the record in its posthearing brief that it does not seek to represent
physicians.
3 The Board found, in Brooklyn Hospital Center, 309 NLRB 1163,
that the Employer unlawfully recognized Local 144, NYSNA, Local
721, and Local 3, as the representatives of the Caledonian employees
and unlawfully applied to these employees the collective-bargaining
agreements covering the Employer’s Brooklyn Hospital employees.
The Employer and Intervenors assert that the Caledonian employ-
ees are residual units to the Brooklyn Hospital units. Because we
found in the unfair labor practice case that, in November 1988, the
Caledonian employees constituted separate unrepresented bargaining
units, we find no merit in that contention.
4 29 CFR 103. 54 FR No. 76 at 16347–16348, 284 NLRB 1580,
1576–1597 (1989).
5 We recognize that two of the petitions (Cases 29–RC–7143 and
29–RC–7150) are for combinations of these units. Because the Peti-
tioner has in effect amended its petition by indicating that it is will-
ing to go to an election in the smaller units set forth in the Health
Care Rules, we need not decide whether the units as petitioned for
are appropriate.
The Brooklyn Hospital Center and Local 1199,
Drug, Hospital and Health Care Employees
Union, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union, AFL–CIO, Petitioner and Local 144,
Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied
Services Union, Service Employees Inter-
national Union, AFL–CIO and Local 819,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO (Intervenor, Case 29–RC–7143 only),
Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO (Intervenor,
Case 29–RC–7143 only), Licensed Practical
Nurses, Technicians and Health Care Workers
of New York, Inc., Local 721, Service Employ-
ees International Union, AFL–CIO (Intervenor,
Case 29–RC–7148 only), and New York State
Nurses Association (Intervenor, Case 29–RC–
7150 only). Cases 29–RC–7143, 29–RC–7148,
and 29–RC–7150
December 16, 1992
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
REMANDING
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
The issue raised in this case concerns the appro-
priate units for collective bargaining at the Employer’s
Caledonian location. On petitions filed under Section
9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing
was held before Administrative Law Judge Steven
Davis. The case was then transferred to the Board pur-
suant to Section 106.67 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations, and by the Re-
gional Director’s order of January 4, 1990.1 Thereafter
the Employer, the Petitioner, and the Intervenors filed
briefs in support of their respective positions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Petitioner, by three separate petitions filed on
January 27 and February 6 and 9, 1989, respectively,
seeks to represent the following employees at the Em-
ployer’s Caledonian facility: in Case 29–RC–7143 all
service and maintenance employees and business office
clericals; in Case 29–RC–7148 all technical employ-
ees; and in Case 29–RC–7150 all professional employ-
ees (including registered nurses).2
The Intervenors are Local 144, Hotel, Hospital,
Nursing Home and Allied Services Union, Service Em-
ployees International Union, AFL–CIO (Local 144);
New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA); Li-
censed Practical Nurses, Technicians and Health Care
Workers of New York Inc., Local 721, Service Em-
ployees International Union, AFL–CIO (Local 721);
and Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL–CIO (Local 3). They have intervened as
to one or more of the petitions on the basis of their
being parties to current collective-bargaining agree-
ments for the units set forth in these petitions.3 Local
819, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO, with whom the Employer has no contract, inter-
vened with respect to Case 29–RC–7143 and is inter-
ested in participating in any election held in that unit.
The Board’s final Rule for determining appropriate
bargaining units in the health care industry, which be-
came effective on May 22, 1989, sets forth the cat-
egories of appropriate units in the health care indus-
try.4 The Petitioner, in its March 9, 1990 posthearing
brief to the judge, recognizes that the petitions predate
the final Rule for health care units, and states that it
would be willing to go to elections in six of the units
which accord with the Rule. These six units would be
registered nurses; all professional employees, excluding
registered nurses and physicians; technical employees;
skilled maintenance employees; business office
clericals; and service and other nonprofessional em-
ployees. The Intervenors have indicated they would
participate in elections in one or more of these six
units. Because the Petitioner and the Intervenors have
indicated they are willing to go to an election in units
which the Board has found to be appropriate units in
accordance with the Health Care Rules, we find the
units are the appropriate units here and that the elec-
tion should be directed in those units.5
As a result of our determination that the election
will be directed in units which differ from those which
1188 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6 The parties stipulated unit placement issues as to the petitioned-
for larger units but not as to any of the smaller units.
7 We recognize that, in Case 29–RC–7148, the unit in which we
have directed the election is identical to the petitioned-for unit and
there are no apparent unresolved issues with respect to that unit. We,
however, are also remanding that petition to the Regional Director
so that he can resolve any unforeseen questions with respect to that
unit.
were sought in the petition and which were litigated at
the hearing, there are issues such as the showing of in-
terest and the unit placement of certain classifications
of employees which cannot be resolved on the present
record.6 In light of the above, we have decided to re-
mand the case to the Regional Director for resolution
of any remaining questions concerning the six units,7
and for the issuance of a Direction of Election.
ORDER
This case is remanded to the Regional Director for
further processing in conformity with this opinion.