Loyola University Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 234 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Loyola University Medical Center and Local 134,
I.B.E.W., Petitioner. Case 13-RC-12214
November 18, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND 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 before Hearing Officer Anthony E. Dom-
brow. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor, Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series
8, as amended, by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 13, this case was transferred to the
National Labor Relations Board for decision. There-
after, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds:
Petitioner filed a petition naming as Employer the
"Loyola University Medical Center" and seeking a
unit of "All electrical maintenance employees em-
ployed at" the Maywood campus. The Maywood
campus encompasses the Medical Center, composed
of the hospital, the school of medicine, and the school
of dentistry. Loyola University Medical Center is a
division of Loyola University of Chicago, which is a
not-for-profit corporation. The Medical Center has
no separate corporate existence apart from the
University. The Employer has taken the position, inter
alia, that the hospital portion of its operations should
be deemed exempt under Section 2(2) of the Act.
Corporate control of Loyola is in a governing board
of 10 Jesuit trustees. Its administrative structure
consists of a president and six vice presidents, with the
Medical Center being the only academic branch of
Loyola with its own vice president. Within the
Medical Center are deans for the three
schools-medical, dental, and nursing-and a direc-
tor of the hospital, all of whom report to the vice
president for the Medical Center. There is an assistant
vice president who is in charge of the Medical Center
administrative services group, which services all the
four components of the Center. Each component
composes its own budget, and work done by individu-
als who service the Medical Center generally is
i Approximately 99 percent of the hospital revenues come from patient
billing.
2 The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the record, unopposed by the
Employer, to adduce evidence which became available after the close of
charged back against the component for whom the
work was done.
The main campus of Loyola is located in Chicago
on the lake front, 25 miles from -the Maywood
campus. The school of nursing is located on the Lake
Front campus and is not physically part of the
Medical Center although it is administratively under
the Medical Center. Another campus in downtown
Chicago is located 11-1/2 miles from the Maywood
medical facility. At the Maywood location, Loyola
has constructed two buildings: (1) the hospital-medi-
cal school building, with the hospital portion taking
up about 60 percent of that space, and (2) the dental
school. The hospital, whose primary object is patient
care, has a 451-bed capacity.
The Medical Center employs about 1,100 persons,
of whom 650 serve only the hospital, 350 serve only
the medical school or dental school, and about 100
serve the Medical Center at large. All are paid from
the Medical Center payroll account, which comes
from Medical Center revenues.' University funds are
used only to meet deficits.
Petitioner seeks a unit of seven electrical mainte-
nance employees. Of these, four are electricians whose
work entails maintenance and installation of electri-
cal equipment, lighting equipment, mechanical appa-
ratus, pumps, power vaults, etc., described as all the
electrical work "behind the plug." Approximately 55
percent of these electricians' work is related to the
hospital, and performed therein, and the remaining 45
percent is performed in the medical school and dental
school. They do not go to any other campus. Also
being sought is a millwright, who spends virtually all
his working time in the hospital where he is engaged in
the fabrication of parts for and maintenance of the
automatic conveyor system that delivers food and
s>:tpplies around the hospital.2 He is also responsible
for the electrical contacts, relays, and controls of the
conveyor system. As the supplier of the system
suggested that a millwright be hired to provide for
maintenance of the system,, the supplier has reim-
bursed the hospital for the millwright's wages for the
first year.
The two other employees sought by Petitioner are
classified as "electronic technicians." They spend
between 75 to 80 percent of their time working in the
hospital, and their shop, or electronics laboratory, is
located in the hospital. The electronic equipment
serviced by the technicians exists throughout the
Medical Center, but is primarily found in the hospital,
and is, generally, directly related to patient care,
consisting of physiological monitoring systems, pa-
the hearing, showing that the alleged millwright is in fact an electrician We
hereby deny that motion, but note that the facts, as stated in Petitioner's
brief, are not contrary to those contained in the record.
194 NLRB No. 30
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 235
tient monitoring equipment, closed-circuit television
systems, call page, and wireless page systems.
Although the Board has recently asserted jurisdic-
tion over non-profit universities, the issue here is
whether Section 2(2) of the Act precludes the Board
from asserting jurisdiction over a hospital operated by
such a university where no part of the net earnings of
that hospital inure to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual. Petitioner claims that
Section 2(2) does not preclude the Board from
asserting jurisdiction, and that Section 2(2) should be
construed narrowly to apply to organizations or
associations that exclusively operate hospitals. How-
ever, we note that Section 2(2) does not limit its
applicability in the manner suggested by Petitioner,3
nor has the legislative history been shown to support
Petitioner's assertion . We must, therefore, apply the
literal language of the Act to the facts as found herein,
attempting, of course, to conform our application to
the apparent spirit of that section.
The Board has had the opportunity of construing
the exemption of Section 2(2) in prior cases. In so
doing, the Board has considered whether the associa-
tion controlling or operating the nonprofit hospital
has been a profit-making organization. The Board has
disregarded the corporate facade, and has asserted
3 Section 2(2) of the Act excludes from the term "employer ," inter aha,
"any corporation or association operating a hospital, if no part of the net
earnings mures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual."
4 General Electric Company, Kadlec Hospital, 89 NLRB 1247; Miami
Inspiration Hospital, Inc., 175 NLRB 636; Parkvue Medical Center and
jurisdiction where it has found private individuals or
shareholders could benefit .4 Here, however, the
opposite is the case. Loyola, as the operating or
controlling arm of the hospital, is a nonprofit
university. This nonprofit university operates and
supports a nonprofit hospital. Therefore, it appears
that insofar as Loyola furnishes hospital services, it
falls within the statutory exclusion of enterprises over
which the Board may assert jurisdiction.
In the present case, we note that the employees
petitioned for spend from 55 to 100 percent of their
time performing services directly for and in the
hospital. They are, essentially, employees of a
nonprofit hospital, the earnings of which hospital do
not inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or
individual. We conclude that because of the specific
exemption in Section 2(2) of the statute, we are
precluded from asserting jurisdiction herein. Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition.5
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting in part:
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in
Duke University, 194 NLRB No. 31, I dissent from my
colleagues' refusal to assertjurisdiction herein.
General Hospital, 183 NLRB No. 65
5 Sierra Hospital Foundation, 181 NLRB No. 143; The Wesleyan
Foundation, 171 NLRB No. 22; Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education
and Research, 165 NLRB 743; cf. United Hospital Services, Inc., 172 NLRB
No. 188