Jack L. Williams

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 1045 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

JACK L. WILLIAMS, DDS 1045
Jack L. Williams , DDS and Redwood Dental Group , for health care facilities other than nursing homes
Petitioner. Case 20-RC-12352
August 11, 1975
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Helen A.
Phillips. Following the hearing and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, this
case was transferred to the Board for decision.
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 hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. Dr. Williams, the Employer, engages in the
practice of dentistry in Santa Rosa, California, in
which he employs approximately 25 employees in-
cluding 4 dentists. This practice is carried on in a
4,000-square foot building designed for the clinical
approach to dentistry and, with some limitations,
operates in every field of major dental endeavor.
Employer claims the Board should not assert juris-
diction because he is engaged in the local practice of
dentistry.
In the year preceding the hearing the gross receipts
from this dental practice were slightly less than
$600,000. The cost in a yearly period of materials and
supplies originating outside the State of California
which were used in connection with Dr. Williams'
dental practice approximated $40,000. Annual insur-
ance premiums in excess of $5,000 were paid to out-
of-state companies. Approximately $84,000 was re-
ceived for dental service from the Denti-Cal pro-
gram, 50 percent of which was provided by Federal
funds. Employer's annual gross revenue in excess of
$500,000 exceeds the $250,000 jurisdictional standard
and visiting nurse services which the Board adopted
in East Oakland Community Health Alliance Inc., 218
NLRB No. 193 1 (1975). The annual indirect inflow
of goods and supplies of approximately $40,000, out-
of-state annual payments for insurance premiums in
excess of $5,000, and annual receipts of more than
$40,000 provided by Federal funds demonstrate a
substantial effect on interstate commerce. See Bio-
Medical Applications of San Diego, Inc., 216 NLRB
No. 115 (1975). We find therefore that the Employer
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
2. Petitioner claims to represent certain employees
of the Employer. The Employer contends, however,
that it is not a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act. Petitioner is a group of
employees formed to bargain with Employer con-
cerning terms of employment and it has in fact nego-
tiated a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Employer. We find it is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act. -
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Employer contends there is a contract bar to the
election requested by Petitioner by virtue of a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement in effect between Employ-
er and Petitioner. The contract-bar doctrine applies
to a union seeking certification as collective-bargain-
ing representative while a contract is in force with
another union. A labor organization which is a party
to a contract with the Employer is not precluded
thereby from seeking certification as the representa-
tive of employees. Accordingly, we find Petitioner's
contract with the Employer is no obstacle to the elec-
tion it seeks.
4. The parties are in agreement, and we find the
following employees to be an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All dentists employed by Employer at 1240
Farmers Lane, Santa Rosa, California, exclud-
ing all non-dentist employees.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior In. omitted
from publication.]
i Member Fammng dissented from the Board 's adoption of the $250,000
standard in East Oakland Community Health Alliance, urging that a
$ 100,000 standard would be more appropriate.
219 NLRB No. 173