Charter Hospital of Orlando South

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 951 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

951
313 NLRB No. 157
CHARTER HOSPITAL OF ORLANDO SOUTH
1 The Regional Director agreed with the parties that PRN employ-
ees who worked an average of 8 hours or more of work per week
during the quarter prior to the election eligibility date are eligible to
vote.
Charter Hospital of St. Louis, Inc. d/b/a Charter
Hospital of Orlando South and United Nurses
of Florida/United Health Care Employees/-
FPD/NUHHCE/AFSCME–AFL–CIO, Peti-
tioner. Cases 12–RC–7669 and 12–RC–7670
March 1, 1994
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND TRUESDALE
On November 26, 1993, the Regional Director for
Region 12 issued a Decision and Direction of Elections
in which he found appropriate for bargaining a unit of
the Employer’s registered nurses (RNs) and a separate
unit of the Employer’s nonprofessional employees ex-
cluding business office clericals. In accordance with
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a
timely request for review.
I.
The Employer’s request for review is granted re-
garding the appropriateness of the RN unit. On careful
consideration of the record, we have decided to affirm
the Regional Director’s decision (pertinent portions are
attached). In affirming, we rely, in addition to the Re-
gional Director’s rationale, on the Board’s recent deci-
sions in two other psychiatric hospital cases finding
separate RN units appropriate. McLean Hospital Corp.,
311 NLRB 1100 (1993), and Holliswood Hospital, 312
NLRB 1185 (1993).
II.
Concerning the nonprofessional unit, the Regional
Director found that seven classifications of employees
were business office clericals (BOCs) (receptionists,
counseling center office managers, administrative sec-
retary, payroll accounting clerk, admissions clerk, pur-
chasing clerk, and billing and collections clerk) and
excluded these classifications from the unit of other
nonprofessionals. The Employer contends that BOCs
should be included in the nonprofessional unit. Al-
though the Employer does not specifically contest the
Regional Director’s designation of any of the seven
classifications as BOCs, we find that, for the reasons
set forth below, the exclusion of the receptionists and
counseling center office managers from the all non-
professional unit is not warranted.
The Employer operates a 60-bed psychiatric hospital
providing inpatient care. The Employer also provides
outpatient counseling at its two outpatient counseling
centers, located several miles from the main facility.
There are 48 nonprofessional employees including full-
time, part-time, and ‘‘PRN’’ workers who are on-call
employees not guaranteed any set number of hours.1 In
addition to the 7 classifications of employees the Re-
gional Director found to be BOCs, there are 5 PRN li-
censed practical nurses (LPNs); 24 mental health tech-
nicians (MHTs) (6 full time and 18 PRNs); 3 full-time
cooks; 2 PRN dietary aids; 2 full-time housekeepers;
1 full-time addictive disease counselor; and 1 full-time
activities therapist.
As indicated, of the seven classifications found by
the Regional Director to be BOCs, the Employer has
one full-time and two PRN receptionists. They work in
the lobby at the point where visitors come into the fa-
cility. They greet and assist visitors and generally ob-
serve egress and ingress. Receptionists answer the tele-
phone and transfer the call to the proper party. Pay-
checks are left at the reception desk to be picked up
by employees. The only requirements for the recep-
tionist position are the ability to read and write and
speak clearly. The record discloses that the reception-
ists would need additional training to move to business
office jobs. Receptionists report to the communications
manager. The Board has found that receptionists, such
as the Employer’s, are not BOCs where they perform
nonbusiness office functions and are located apart from
the main business office. Rhode Island Hospital, 313
NLRB 343, 359–360 (1993) (medical records reception
clerk is not a BOC). Although the Board has included
clericals who also function as switchboard operators in
business office clerical units, the record does not show
that the Employer’s receptionists, in answering tele-
phones, function as switchboard operators. We, there-
fore, include the receptionists (to the extent otherwise
eligible) in the nonprofessional unit.
The two counseling center office managers staff the
Employer’s two outlying counseling centers in Orlando
and Melbourne, several miles from the hospital. The
counseling center office managers are supervised by
the director of outpatient therapy, who shuttles be-
tween the two locations. The office managers’ duties
were described as secretarial/clerical and reception
functions. The Employer rents space in its counseling
centers to independent therapists and psychiatric practi-
tioners. The office manager acts as a receptionist and
does some paperwork duties relating to admission and
billing when a tenant practitioner or someone else
wants to refer a patient to the Employer’s hospital. The
office managers maintain a ‘‘business office presence’’
at the centers. They are not licensed, but are required
to have a high school education. In Rhode Island Hos-
pital, supra at 358, 359–360, the Board found that bill-
ing clerks who do not work in predominantly business
office areas and/or who perform billing work not in
952 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 Although the Regional Director stated that neither party made
any argument at the hearing or in its brief concerning the administra-
tive secretary’s possible status as a confidential employee, the Peti-
tioner did assert in its brief that the administrative secretary is a con-
fidential employee. There was, however, no request for review on
this issue. In any event, there is insufficient evidence in the record
to make a determination that the administrative secretary is a con-
fidential employee who should be excluded from the unit.
connection with the employer’s main business office
were not BOCs and were includable in the nonprofes-
sional unit which excluded BOCs. The counseling cen-
ter office managers fit this description and, similarly,
will be included in the Employer’s nonprofessional
unit.
Regarding the remaining five classifications which
the Regional Director excluded from the nonprofes-
sional unit, we have, for reasons which follow, deter-
mined that issues regarding their exclusion can best be
resolved through use of the Board’s challenge proce-
dure and direct that these classifications be permitted
to vote subject to challenge.
Most of the classifications in the Employer’s busi-
ness office perform typical business office functions,
including billing, dealing with insurers, and purchas-
ing. These classifications include the billing and col-
lections clerk, a purchasing clerk, and a payroll and ac-
counting clerk. In addition, the business office staff in-
cludes an admissions clerk. All of the classifications in
the business office are supervised by the controller.
The Regional Director actually found that the business
office staff consisted of five persons—the fifth being
an administrative secretary. The record indicates, how-
ever, that the Employer considers the administrative
secretary as part of the administrative staff, apparently
different from the business office staff of the four
clerks. All five are located in the business office and
two nearby offices, but the record does not disclose
which office contains which employee. The administra-
tive secretary serves and reports directly to the hos-
pital’s administrator. She makes appointments, screens
calls and visitors for the administrator, and is generally
a personal secretary to him. She does credentialing of
physicians and mental health professionals. She spends
an undisclosed portion of her time working with the
payroll clerk in preparing distribution of the payroll.
The administrative secretary may have contact with
housekeepers, MHTs, or LPNs if a patient has a strong
concern and wants to see the administrator. In view of
the lack of detail regarding the administrative sec-
retary’s possible BOC duties and her work location in
relation to the business office classifications who per-
form clear BOC functions, and also because we are
unclear as to her relationship to the remainder of the
business office, we find the administrative secretary
should vote subject to challenge.2
As indicated, there are four remaining classifications
in the business office. The payroll accounting clerk
keeps and prepares the payroll and the accounts pay-
able. The purchasing clerk places orders and buys sup-
plies for the hospital. They work during the daytime
office hours. The admissions clerk performs ‘‘pre-cer-
tifications’’ with patients’ insurance companies. She
has contact with most incoming patients to collect the
data required to be forwarded to the insurance com-
pany. She may check with the needs assessment office
for a preliminary diagnosis to relate to the insurance
carrier to secure a certification for coverage. The bill-
ing and collections clerk has contact with most patients
at the time of their discharge. This clerk is responsible
for reviewing the patient’s bill and arranging to bill
and collect any amounts due. All four employees re-
port to the controller and have very limited contact
with other nonprofessionals. The payroll, purchasing,
and billing clerks perform business office clerical func-
tions: they deal with hospital finances and patient bill-
ing. As was the case with BOCs in the Board’s Rule-
making (284 NLRB at 1563), these business office
clericals are separately supervised and have little inter-
action with other nonprofessionals because of their
physical isolation. The relation of the admissions
clerical’s functions to that of the business office is less
clear. See William W. Backus Hospital, 220 NLRB 414
(1975) (admitting clerk located near business office but
not supervised by controller was not BOC). We con-
clude, however, that these four clericals should vote
subject to challenge.
In the Rulemaking, the Board found a unit of five
or fewer employees to constitute an extraordinary cir-
cumstance warranting a case-by-case unit determina-
tion (284 NLRB at 1588). Although the Rule does not
apply to psychiatric hospitals, the considerations raised
by the Board in Rulemaking concerning very small
units are applicable to nonacute care facilities: such
small units would in many cases be impractically
small. See Park Manor Care Center, 305 NLRB 872,
877 (1991). Where so few employees are involved de-
spite the shared, unique concerns, and backgrounds
that would otherwise make the separate units appro-
priate, these concerns may be outweighed by consider-
ations of disproportionate, unjustified costs, and undue
proliferation of units.
Here, even including the administrative secretary,
the Employer has five or fewer employees whom the
Board might consider to be BOCs. Were this situation
to arise in an acute care hospital setting, the Board
would then require further examination of the situation
to determine whether such a small number of employ-
ees appropriately could be separated from an otherwise
all nonprofessional unit. Such an examination would
include, inter alia, a comparison of the factors relied
on by the Board in the Rulemaking in finding a sepa-
rate BOC unit appropriate: education, training, func-
tions, location, supervision, wages, interchange, and
953CHARTER HOSPITAL OF ORLANDO SOUTH
4 In its petition in Case 12–RC–7669, the Petitioner originally
sought a unit of full-time and regular part-time RNs and medical
health technicians. In Case 12–RC–7670, the Petitioner sought a unit
of ‘‘pool registered nurses, LPNs, and mental health technicians.’’
In its brief, the Petitioner abandoned the unit contentions set forth
in its petitions, and instead sought other units set forth above.
5 The director of outpatient services is also called the director of
outpatient therapy.
6 PRN employees are on-call employees who are not guaranteed
any set number of hours and whose utilization is dependent on the
census level of the hospital.
7 See Park Manor Care Center, 305 NLRB 872 (1991); 306
NLRB 598 (1992); St. Barnabas Hospital, 283 NLRB 472 (1987);
Mount Airy Psychiatric Center, 253 NLRB 1003 (1981); Sutter
Community Hospitals, 227 NLRB 181 (1975).
transfers among others. There is little here on the
record to enable the Board to make such a comparison.
Thus, concerning the Employer’s billing, admissions,
purchasing, and payroll clerks, there is little evidence
regarding wages, education, training, interchange, and
transfers. In these circumstances, and since there are,
at most, 5 or fewer employees out of, at the minimum,
20 nonprofessionals (48 if all PRNs are eligible to
vote), we will permit these 4 clerks, too, to vote sub-
ject to challenge.
APPENDIX
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
The Petitioner seeks to represent employees in two sepa-
rate units.4 One unit wouId consist of all full-time and regu-
lar part-time registered nurses (RNs). The second unit wouId
include all full-time and regular part-time licensed practical
nurses (LPNs) and mental health technicians (MHTs). The
Petitioner would also include within each of the above units,
those employees variously referred to as per diem, pool, on-
call or PRN employees, who worked ‘‘at least 8 hours per
week or average 128 hours per quarter.’’ The RN unit sought
by Petitioner would consist of approximately 32 employees.
The unit of LPNs and MHTs would consist of approximately
29 employees, assuming the eligibility of all PRNs. Contrary
to the Petitioner, the Employer contended, both at the hearing
and in its brief, that the appropriate units at its facility should
consist of all professional employees in one unit and all non-
professional employees in a second unit. The professional
unit contemplated by the Employer would consist of some 51
employees; the nonprofessional unit would contain approxi-
mately 48.
The Employer’s facility is a 60-bed psychiatric hospital
which provides inpatient psychiatric care as well as out-
patient counseling for children and adults. There are approxi-
mately 100 nonsupervisory employees at or associated with
the facility. The patients are housed in three patient care
units, the general adult unit, the adolescent unit, and the spe-
cial support unit for the more acute cases. There is a cafe-
teria, a gymnasium, a community room, a therapy room, and
various other offices and areas where a number of inpatient
and outpatient services are provided as described here.
The hospital is headed by an administrator; reporting to
him are the needs assessment manager, director of human re-
sources, assistant administrator for clinical services, the con-
troller, the director of marketing, and the director of out-
patient services.5 In addition to the foregoing managers and
officials, the parties stipulated that the following positions or
classifications were to be excluded from either unit as super-
visors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act: direc-
tor of environmental services, director of plant operations,
communications manager, supervisor of the partial programs,
director of activities therapy, director of quality and risk
management, director of social services, director of medical
records, supervisor for the addictive disease program, and the
three RN nurse managers who are assigned to each of the
patient care units. Consistent with the agreement of the par-
ties, I shall exclude the above-named supervisors and man-
agers from the units found appropriate.
All full-time employees discussed, both professional and
nonprofessional, enjoy essentially the same employment ben-
efit package, which includes medical, dental and life insur-
ance, 401(k) retirement plan, and certain holiday and vaca-
tion pay. The regular part-time employees are eligible for
only the medical and dental insurance. PRN employees do
not receive any benefits except that they, like the regular
part-time employees, may participate in the 401(k) retirement
plan if they work more than 1000 hours during the year.
As noted above, with respect to the professional employ-
ees, the Petitioner contends that a unit of RNs is appropriate,
while the Employer contends that the only appropriate unit
is one of all professional employees, not RNs alone. There
are 11 full-time RNs, 1 regular part-time, and 20 PRNs.6
This number does not include the three nurse managers, one
for each unit, who are stipulated to be statutory supervisors,
but does include three ‘‘nursing house supervisors,’’ who
function in the role of charge nurses in the units, mainly dur-
ing evenings and weekends. Although they direct other
nurses with respect to patient care and medical standards, the
nursing house supervisors do not possess authority to dis-
cipline employees or otherwise possess or exercise indicia of
supervisory authority. The Employer would include them in
the professional unit and the Petitioner made no contention
that they were supervisors or should otherwise be excluded.
There being no evidence to the contrary, I shall therefore in-
clude the nursing house supervisors in the unit, and exclude
the three nurse managers.
Although the Petitioner seeks a unit of RNs only, the Em-
ployer argues that any appropriate unit in a relatively small
psychiatric facility such as this should include all profes-
sional employees. Therefore, the Employer would include
with the RNs a total of approximately 19 employees in the
following classifications, which it contends are professional
employees: needs assessment referral counselors, community
service representatives, social workers, utilization review co-
ordinators, and a teacher. At the hearing, the Petitioner did
not explicitly contradict or take issue with the Employer’s
evidence and testimony that the foregoing classifications are
professional, nor did it make any such contention in its brief,
where it merely argues that these classifications were not in-
volved in direct patient care and therefore did not share suffi-
cient community of interests with the RNs to warrant their
inclusion in a broad professional unit. Accordingly, l find in
apparent agreement with the parties, that the subject classi-
fications do qualify as professional employees.7
I turn now to the question of whether or not RNs con-
stitute a separate appropriate unit. The record reflects that
954 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8 When issuing its Final Rule, applicable to acute care hospitals
only, the Board specifically excluded psychiatric hospitals. 54
Fed.Reg. 16336, 16348; 284 NLRB 1580, 1597 (1989). However,
under the Park Manor test, the Board’s findings during Rulemaking
are also to be taken into account when deciding the appropriate unit
in a health care facility not covered by the Final Rule.
RNs are immediately supervised by the nurse managers, who
in turn report to the assistant administrator for clinical serv-
ices, an RN herself. The RNs in the respective units medi-
cally direct and are ultimately responsible for the work of the
LPNs and MHTs in the units. One or more RNs are present
in each unit at all times. To accomplish this, RNs work three
8-hour shifts. The RNs also have occasion to meet with other
hospital professionals and submit a ‘‘nursing assessment’’ of
patients and their treatments as described further below. The
nurses supervise the administering of all medications.
There are five full-time and four PRN needs assessment
referral counselors, who interview, assess, and evaluate
newly arriving patients. They make a profile assessment
which is used in subsequent team meetings to plan a course
of treatment for the patient. They also talk to and deal with
the families of arriving patients as a part of their assessment
duties. Requirements for the position include a bachelors de-
gree with at least a current enrollment in a masters degree
program with an emphasis on mental health counseling.
There is by law a continuing education requirement for the
counselors. They work at the facility in shifts between 8 a.m.
and 10 p.m., and report to the needs assessment manager.
There are two community service representatives, both full
time. Their function is essentially a sales or marketing one,
and they are supervised by the director of marketing, who
himself reports directly to the administrator. The community
service representatives market the services of the Employer
to institutions, schools, physicians, psychiatrists, judicial and
penal systems, and businesses, and procure contracts from
these entities. A bachelors degree is a prerequisite for the po-
sition, and of the two incumbents, one has an MBA degree
and one is an RN with psychiatric training. They are salaried
and one has a second outside office in Melbourne, Florida.
There are two social workers, who are supervised by the
manager of social services and ultimately, the assistant ad-
ministrator for clinical services. Both have masters degrees
in social work, which is a general requirement for the posi-
tion. The social workers compile a ‘‘pyscho-social assess-
ment’’ of the patient and his history and background within
several days of admission. This assessment is used by the
clinical team in planning therapy and treatment. Their offices
are in the patient units.
There are two utilization review (UR) coordinators, one of
whom is a PRN. They report to the director of medical
records, who in turn reports to the controller. Although both
UR coordinators are RNs, this is not a requirement for the
position, which could be filled by some other degreed ‘‘psy-
chiatric professional.’’ The UR coordinators deal with the
Government, insurance companies, and other third party pay-
ers regarding the appropriateness of treatment, length of stay,
anticipated discharge dates, and other matters related to
costs.
The Employer employs one teacher, who holds a bachelors
degree and has additional psychiatric training. This individual
is an educator responsible for teaching the patients aged 17
and under. Her duties also include writing assessments con-
cerning the progress and problems of her students in the ado-
lescent unit.
The Employer contends that the above-mentioned profes-
sional classifications should be included with RNs in any ap-
propriate unit because of the degree of interaction and work
contact entailed by the Employer’s ‘‘Multi-disciplinary Treat-
ment Plan in which the full range of . . . staff interact in
developing and implementing a plan of treatment and therapy
for each patient.’’ In connection with this multidisciplinary
mode of treatment, meetings are held, soon after admission
and some thereafter, in which the social workers and perhaps
the needs assessment counselors and teacher, along with
some nonprofessional employees discussed, may collaborate
with the RNs, their supervision, and others to discuss pa-
tients’ cases from the perspectives of their particular dis-
ciplines.
Based on the record as a whole, and the rationale set forth
below, and applying the ‘‘empirical community of interests’’
test set forth in Park Manor Care Center, 305 NLRB 872
(1991), I find that a separate unit of RNs is appropriate. In
so finding, I note that the RNs constitute a sizable homo-
geneous grouping of professionals involved in continuous, di-
rect patient care, with a chain of command through the nurse
managers and to the assistant administrator for clinical serv-
ices, herself an RN. While it is true that some other profes-
sionals at the Employer’s hospital also have a substantial de-
gree of patient contact, it is also clear that staff RNs are
hired to perform functions distinct from those performed by
the other professionals.
The Board found during Rulemaking,8 that registered
nurses in acute care hospitals constitute a discrete group
whose distinctive interests warrant separate representation.
Factors relied on by the Board included unique work sched-
ules; unique responsibilities; common supervision by other
nurses; separate labor market and distinct wages from those
of other professionals; separate education, training, and li-
censing requirements; interaction with other RNs and lack of
regular and recurring contact with other professionals; lack
of interchange; and history of representation and collective
bargaining in separate units. 53 Fed.Reg. 33900, 33911–
33914; 284 NLRB 1528, 1543–1548 (1988). Most of these
factors are found in the present case as well.
In its Rulemaking, the Board also talked about the team
concept of patient care. 53 Fed.Reg at 33913; 284 NLRB at
1546. Thus, the Board noted that the participation of RNs in
teams might be somewhat limited. In Rulemaking, the Board
further noted:
More importantly, the fact that the RNs may interact
and work with other professionals on teams does not
alter the separateness of their identify . . . . The evi-
dence was uncontracted that it does not alter each li-
censed professional’s responsibility for his or her indi-
vidual scope of practice.
53 Fed.Reg. at 33913; 284 NLRB 1546.
At the Employer’s facility, although the teacher reports di-
rectly to the assistant administrator for clinical services, and
the two social workers also report to her indirectly, other
non-RN professional classifications—UR coordinators, com-
munity service representatives, and needs assessment referral
counselors—are not in the ‘‘clinical’’ chain of command.
955CHARTER HOSPITAL OF ORLANDO SOUTH
9 The instant employees are distinguishable from the mental health
workers found by the Regional Director to be technical employees
in Brattleboro Retreat, 310 NLRB 615 (1993). In the instant case,
there is no record evidence that a substantial portion of the MHTs
are college graduates; indeed, the inference is that few if any are
degreed. See also fn. 1 in the Brattleboro case.
Moreover, while there is some evidence of work contacts be-
tween the other professional classifications and the RNs
working in the patient care units, there are important dif-
ferences which support the Petitioner’s argument that the
RNs constitute a sufficiently separate, distinct grouping to
warrant separate representation. Thus, the record does not re-
flect that any of the above classifications work around-the-
clock shifts as do the RNs. As a group, they are not directly
and immediately involved in direct patient care to the extent
that the RNs are, nor are they as a group closely involved
with the oversight and medical supervision of the LPNs and
MHTs on the unit floors. The foregoing classifications’ con-
tacts with patients, and with the RNs, is for the most part
limited to the time of admission and to sporadic or special
circumstances thereafter. Accordingly, I shall direct an elec-
tion in a separate unit of RNs.
Turning now to the nonprofessionals, the Petitioner, as
stated, seeks a unit of full-time and regular part-time LPNs
and MHTs, including PRN employees in these classifications
who satisfy a proposed formula for average hours worked.
The Employer, on the other hand, urges that only a unit of
all nonprofessional employees is appropriate. The Employer
would include, in addition to the LPNs and MHTs, the fol-
lowing nonprofessional classifications: dietary aides, cooks,
housekeepers, the addictive disease counselor, the activities
therapist assistant, the business office staff, the receptionists,
and counseling center office managers.
The five LPNs are all on-call employees (PRNs). By Flor-
ida law, an LPN must have completed 1 year of training at
a technical or vocational school and pass an exam to be li-
censed. Thereafter, there are biennial continuing education
requirements. An LPN can administer medication and pro-
vide various other forms of direct patient care. All of the
Employer’s LPNs work under the statutory supervision of the
unit nurse managers, the medical supervision of the RNs, and
work with the MHTs, whose status is discussed below. The
Employer takes the position that LPNs are technical employ-
ees, while the Petitioner has taken no position on this issue.
In agreement with the Employer, and based on the LPNs’
training, licensing, and job duties, which require the use of
independent judgment, I conclude that they are technical em-
ployees. Barnert Memorial Hospital Assn., 217 NLRB 775,
780 (1975).
Both parties would also include the approximately 24
MHTs in a unit with LPNs. There are 6 full-time and 18
‘‘PRN’’ MHTs. The MHTs, as stated above, work in the pa-
tient care units under the same supervision as LPNs. The
MHTs are unlicensed, and no formal training is required to
be employed. The Employer does require a high school di-
ploma, and considers some college courses, in an area such
as psychology, or some prior experience with psychiatric pa-
tients as desirable but not required. The MHT by law can
never administer medication, but the more experienced ones
may take EKGs and patient vital signs, enter some data on
charts, or do ‘‘Q-15s’’ (15-minute checks on suicidal pa-
tients), all under the oversight of an LPN or RN. These skills
are acquired mainly through on-the-job training. Most of the
time, their duties include escorting patients to and from
meals or meetings and otherwise attending to their personal,
rather than medical, care. Although there is a single reference
in the Employer’s brief to the MHTs as ‘‘technical employ-
ees,’’ neither party espoused this position at the hearing or
actually argued such in its brief. In any case, it is quite clear
that the MHTs do not meet the Board’s long held criteria for
technical employees. The levels of education and training as
well as the duties required of the MHTs are not sufficient
to make them technicals.9
Having concluded that MHTs are not technical employees,
it follows that the unit sought by the Petitioner is not a tech-
nical unit. Furthermore, inasmuch as the only employees
shown or found to be technical are the five LPNs, all of
whom are on-call PRNs, it does not appear that a separate
technical unit is appropriate here. The Board in its acute care
Rulemaking, has expressed concern about units of five or
less. Here, there is a real possibility that a technical unit of
LPNs would be less than five employees, should one or more
of the LPNs not meet the PRN formula for eligibility set
forth here. Therefore, taking into account the small number
of technical employees at the Employer’s facility, the desires
of the parties, and all of the evidence concerning the Em-
ployer’s operations, and applying the Park Manor test, I con-
clude that a grouping of employees broader than that sought
by the Petitioner is appropriate.
The Employer would include the three cooks (full time),
the two dietary aides (PRN), and the two housekeepers (full
time) in a nonprofessional unit. The cooks and dietary aides
prepare and serve foods to patients and staff in the hospital
cafeteria, and perform the obvious chores of cleaning up and
washing associated with food services. The two housekeepers
perform custodial duties throughout the facility. All three po-
sitions are supervised by the director of environmental serv-
ices, who in turn reports to the human resources director.
There is one addictive disease counselor (full time), who
is described as a ‘‘lay role model’’ for patients, and who
provides encouragement and information about AA, NA, and
the recovery process. He is not licensed, has no particular
academic training, and the job requirements are described as
‘‘about the same as a MHT.’’ He reports to the chemical de-
pendency supervisors.
There is one activities therapist assistant (PRN), who is
not licensed or formally trained. No degree is required for
this position. This individual helps with and encourages ac-
tivities and game-playing in the gym and elsewhere.
Based on the record and the foregoing, I shall also include
the cooks, dietary aides, housekeepers, addictive disease
counselor, and the activities therapist assistant in the non-
professional unit. Although several of these categories are
not involved in full-time patient care, it is appropriate to in-
clude them in an overall nonprofessional unit for the reasons
stated.