Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 1211 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

DOMINICAN SANTA CRUZ HOSPITAL
Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital and California
Association for Medical Laboratory Technology
Engineers and Scientists of California , Petitioner.
Case 20-RC-12560
June 30, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING, JENKINS, AND" PENELLO
On March 13, 1975, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 20 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which
she found appropriate and directed an election in a
unit consisting of all regular full-time and part-time
medical laboratory technologists employed by the
Employer, excluding all other employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act. Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request
for review of the Acting Regional Director's decision,
together with a supporting brief, asserting that the
Acting Regional Director erred in directing an
election in a unit restricted to medical laboratory
technologists and that the medical laboratory tech-
nologists should be included in the same unit as
other professional employees of the Employer. The
Petitioner filed a brief in opposition to the request for
review.
On April 18, 1975, the National Labor Relations
Board by telegraphic order granted the request for
review and stayed the election pending a decision on
review.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this
case and makes the following findings:
The Employer is a nonprofit California corpora-
tion, owned and operated by the Dominican Sisters
of Adrian, Michigan. It is engaged in the operation
of an acute care hospital in Santa Cruz, California.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit confined to
medical laboratory technologists employed by the
Employer. The record, however, shows that, notwith-
standing that they work primarily in the medical
laboratory, the medical laboratory technologists
share an identifiable community of interest with the
other professional employees at the Employer's
facility. Thus, like other professionals, the medical
laboratory technologists are required to hold bacca-
laureate degrees in their respective specialty and their
undergraduate education is supplemented by addi-
I
The Act does not require that the unit for bargaining be the only
appropriate unit, or the most appropriate unit. Rather, the Act requires only
that the unit be "appropriate," that is, appropriate to insure employees "the
218 NLRB No. 182
1211
tional training and/or licensure. The medical labora-
tory technologists have wage scales and working
conditions similar to those of the professionals. In
our opinion, the petitioned-for medical laboratory
technologists herein possess characteristics similar to
those possessed by the medical laboratory technolo-
gists who were separately sought in Mercy Hospitals
of Sacramento, Inc., 217 NLRB No. 131 (1975), and
we find, therefore, for the reasons stated in Mercy,
that the petitioned-for separate unit of medical
laboratory technologists is inappropriate.
As an alternative, the Petitioner has expressed a
willingness to participate in an election in a unit
consisting of all professional employees excluding
registered nurses. The Employer, on the other hand,
contends that the only appropriate unit of profes-
sional employees should include all professional
employees employed by it including medical labora-
tory technologists, pharmacists, dieticians, and regis-
tered nurses. The record shows that the Employer
employs 11 medical laboratory technologists, 3
pharmacists, 2 dieticians, and approximately 134
registered nurses of whom about 110 are nonsupervi-
sory. None of the Employer's employees is currently
represented by any labor organization.
In Mercy, supra, we expressly left open the question
whether, in the absence of a separate petition seeking
registered nurses, we would direct an election only in
an overall professional unit including registered
nurses or whether, if sought, we would find appropri-
ate and direct an election in a unit of all professional
employees excluding registered nurses.
In the instant case, while we are of the opinion that
a unit of all professional employees including
registered nurses may be an appropriate unit, as
urged by the Employer, we believe that a unit of all
professional employees excluding registered nurses
may, if sought, also constitute an appropriate
bargaining unit.' Thus, in the Mercy case, we found,
based upon the contentions of the parties therein, as
well as on the information supplied by various amici
participants in the oral arguments before the Board,
that registered nurses, quite apart from the question
whether a labor organization is seeking to represent
them in a separate unit, possess a singular communi-
ty of interest among themselves, separate and distinct
from that possessed by other professional employees
in health care institutions. This separate community
of interest, as was shown in Mercy, is grounded on a
longstanding "tradition of separate and exclusive
representation and, collective bargaining" as well as
the unique aspects attendant to the rendering of
fullest freedom in exercising their rights guaranteed by this Act." See, e.g.,
Morand Brothers Beverage Co, 91 NLRB 409 ( 1950), enfd. 190 F.2d 576
(C.A. 7, 1951).
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
professional nursing services in hospitals. Other
professional groups,2 we found, had not displayed
the characteristics which moved the Board in,Mercy
to permit registered nurses to be separately represent-
ed from other professionals in health care institu-
tions.
Based on the above observations, we believe that a
unit consisting of all professional employees exclud-
ing registered nurses can be an appropriate unit even
where no labor organization is seeking to separately
represent the latter. This conclusion is bolstered in
the instant case by the fact that the registered nurses
constitute the largest part, numerically, of the
Employer's professional work force. We do not
believe that a particular labor organization seeking to
represent the interests of the relatively small group of
other professional employees in this health care
institution should be compelled to organize and
represent the relatively large group of registered
nurses who, as we have found, possess a community
of interest separate and apart from that of the other
professional employees. Our decision is further
supported by the fact that the registered nurses,
unlike most other groups of professional employees,
2 We do not reach or consider herein the question whether we would find
appropriate a unit limited to physicians, residents , and interns.
3 This is similar to our policy of not requiring the automatic inclusion of
over-the-road truckdnvers, who themselves can constitute a separate
appropriate unit , if sought as such, where a labor organization is seeking a
less comprehensive unit limited to all employees excluding such drivers. See,
e.g., E. H. Koester Bakery Co., Inc., 136 NLRB 1006 (1962).
4 Since no party has sought to include physicians, residents, or interns in
can, if they so desire, be represented in a separate
bargaining unit.3
Accordingly, for the above reasons and based on
the record herein, we conclude that the medical
laboratory technologists, dieticians, and pharmacists
employed by the Employer possess a community of
interest separate and apart from that of the registered
nurses, and that a unit of all professional employees
of the Employer including medical laboratory tech-
nologists, dieticians, and pharmacists, but excluding
registered nurses, is appropriate.4
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find that
the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All professional employees excluding registered
nurses employed by the Employer at its Santa
Cruz, California facility; excluding all other
employees, guards and supervisors5 as defined in
the Act.
[Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
the unit, we shall exclude them as well.
5 The parties stipulated that the chief engineer and the assistant chief
technologist are supervisors within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act.
6 Inasmuch as the unit found appropriate is broader than that orginally
petitioned for by the Petitioner, the Regional Director shall determine
whether the Petitioner 's showing of interest is sufficient before proceeding
with the election.