Marquette General Hospital, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 20, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 713 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

MARQUETTE GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC. Marquette General Hospital, Inc.1 and Michigan Council 55, American Federation of State , County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 30--RC-2517 June 20, 1975 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer William F. Jacobs of the National Labor Relations Board. Following the hearing, the Regional Director for Region 30 transferred this case to the Board for decision . Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs with the Board which have been duly considered. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed.2 Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board finds: 1. The Employer, a private nonprofit hospital in Marquette, Michigan, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization seeking to represent certain employees of the Employer.3 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all regular full-time and regular part-time employees, including all regular on-call employees "properly includable under the National Labor Relations Act," but excluding all supervisors, professional employees, i The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The Employer moved to dismiss the petition at the hearing on the basis that the petition is predicated in substantial part upon a stale card interest showing . We find no merit in the Employer's motnon. It is well established that the showing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to litigation. The Brescome Distributors Corporation, 197 NLRB 642 (1972); General Dynamics Corporation, Convair Division, 175 NLRB 1035 (1969); 0. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516 (1946). 3 The record discloses that Marquette General Hospital, Inc., Technical Laboratory Association, initially intervened in this proceeding, but withdrew during the hearing and disclaimed further interest in representing unit employees. 218 NLRB No. 105 713 confidential employees, and guards. The briefs and the record in this case disclose that the parties are in substantial agreement regarding the scope and the appropriateness of the unit .4 The parties further agree that medical technologists, chemists, pharma- cists , and registered nurses should be excluded as professional employees; that the secretary and the administrative assistant to the executive director and all employees in the payroll and personnel depart- ments should be excluded as confidential employees; and that certain designated individuals should be excluded as supervisors .5 Their sole disagreement goes to the unit status and voter eligibility of on-call employees. The Employer would include all on call employees in the unit. The Petitioner would vote them subject to challenge because it contends the record does not justify a blanket ruling as to the inclusion or exclusion of these employees. There are approximately 23 employees in the nursing department whom the Employer classifies as on-call. Employees, to be placed in this classification, must sign a 6-month contract in which they agree to be available at certain specified times . The Employer maintains a list of these employees with their periods of availability, and calls on them when additional help is needed. On-call employees have the same responsibility and duties as regular employees. Several of the employees in this category have been employed by the Employer for several years. Some are former full-time employees, others are seeking full-time employment and work on an on-call basis until there is a vacancy. When a vacancy occurs, on- call employees are promptly notified and are afford- ed a preferential opportunity to apply and to obtain the vacant job if qualified, as against applicants from outside the hospital. The promotion, training, and evaluation of on-call employees and other unit employees is governed by substantially similar procedures and standards. On-call employees are also entitled to the same pharmacy and billing discounts as regular employees. The record of hours worked by on-call employees in 1974 discloses that some on-call employees work a substantial amount of hours over a 3-month period, but that others work only infrequently or irregularly. This factor does not affect unit inclusion, only voter eligibility. In these 4 The Employer raised the issue of the professional status of licensed practical nurses in its brief. In accordance with precedent , we find that they are not professionals and are properly includable in the unit sought by Petitioner. See Nathan and Miriam Barnert Memorial Hospital Association d/b/a Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, 217 NLRB No. 132 (1975); St. Catherine 's Hospital of Dominican Sisters of Kenosha, Wisconsin, Inc., 217 NLRB No. 133 (1975). 5 The Petitioner and the Employer are in agreement that the section heads in the laboratory should be excluded from the unit . We find that their exclusion is proper inasmuch as the record demonstrates that section heads are supervisors within the meaning of Sec . 2(11) of the Act. 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD circumstances , we conclude that ` on-call- employees share a substantial community, of interest with other unit employees, and we shall therefore include them in the unit. Selection of eligible voters in cases where there is a significant difference in the number of hours worked by part-time or on-call employees depends on a careful balancing of the factors of length, regularity, and currency of employment .6 In the instant case, the record discloses that during the 1974 calendar year the number of hours worked by on-call employees in 3-month periods ranged from 23 to 540.5. In our view, those employees who have worked only 23 hours in a calendar quarter do not share a community of interest with regular unit employees. It,-,,is therefore incumbent upon us to devise an eligibility formula which in light of the above-stated factors equitably determines which employees shall be entitled to vote. Accordingly, in 6 Manncraft Exhibitors Services, Inc, 212 NLRB 923 (1974); Daniel Ornamental Iron Co, Inc., 195 NLRB 334 (1972); C.T.L Testing Laboratories, Inc., 150 NLRB 982, 985 (1965), and the cases cited therein. order to afford those employees with' a substantial and continuing interest in employment an oppor- tunity to vote, we shall direct that those on-call employees who have worked a minimum of 120 hours in either of the two, 3-month periods immedi- ately preceding the date of issuance of this Decision and Direction of Election shall be eligible to vote.? Accordingly, we shall remand this case to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an election in the following appropriate unit: All regular full-time and regular part-time em- ployees, excluding supervisors, professional em- ployees, confidential employees, casual employees and guards. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] T See Manncraft Exhibitors Services, supra, Daniel Ornamental Ironi Co., supra, Scoa, Inc, 140 NLRB 1379 (1963).