Sacred Heart General Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 5, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 966 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace d/b/a Sacred Heart
General Hospital and Oregon Licensed Practical
Nurses Association, Inc., Petitioner. Case 36-
RC-3410
August 5, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
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 Dale Cubbi-
son of the National Labor Relations Board. On Feb-
ruary 19, 1975, the Regional Director for Region 19
issued a Decision and Direction of Election in which
he found appropriate a unit consisting of all licensed
practical nurses employed by the Employer. Thereaf-
ter, the Employer, in accordance with Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations Series 8, as amended, filed a request for
review of the Regional Director's decision on the
ground that the Regional Director erred in directing
an election in a unit restricted to licensed practical
nurses . The Petitioner filed a brief in support of the
Regional Director's decision.
On May 22, 1975, the National Labor Relations
Board by telegraphic order granted the request for
review and stayed the election pending a decision on
review. The Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs
on review which have been duly considered.
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 entire record in this
case and makes the following findings:
The Employer operates a general hospital in Eu-
gene, Oregon, employing approximately 1,300 em-
ployees of which about 120 are licensed pratical
nurses . The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit con-
sisting solely of all licensed practical nurses em-
ployed by the Employer. The Employer, on the other
hand, contends that the instant petition should be
dismissed in accordance with the Board's holding in
St. Catherine's Hospital of Dominican Sisters of Keno-
sha, Wisconsin, Inc.'
In support of its position, the Petitioner asserts on
review that, notwithstanding the Board's holding in
St. Catherine's, the petitioned-for unit of licensed
practical nurses is appropriate in this case because of
' 217 NLRB No. 133 (1975).
their separate community of interest, the history of
separate bargaining for licensed practical nurses in
the State of Oregon, and because no other labor or-
ganization is seeking to represent licensed practical
nurses in any other unit. The Petitioner further ar-
gues that some of the Employer's technical employ-
ees (radiology technicians) are currently represented
in a separate unit and that the fragmentation which
the Board sought to avoid in St. Catherine's is al-
ready a reality.2
We find no merit in the Petitioner's contentions. In
St. Catherine's, supra, the Board found inappropriate
and dismissed a petition seeking a separate unit limit-
ed to licensed practical nurses. Rather, based on the
legislative history of the health care amendments, as
discussed therein, the absence of a separate bargain-
ing history among the licensed practical nurses at the
facility involved, and the community of interest
shared by all technical employees including licensed
practical nurses, we found that licensed practical
nurses are properly includable in a bargaining unit
consisting of all technical employees.
In the instant case, based on the considerations
discussed in St. Catherine's, supra, we find, contrary
to the Petitioner's contentions, that the licensed prac-
tical nurses do not possess a community of interest
separate and apart from other employees in the
Employer's health care facility. Thus, the record es-
tablishes that the licensed practical nurses work side
by side with other employees throughout the
Employer's facility, share identical working hours
and fringe benefits with other employees, and are
paid within the same salary range as the Employer's
technicians. In addition, the record does not indicate
any bargaining history separate or other wise involv-
ing the licensed practical nurses at the Employer's
facility. Furthermore, the fact that no other labor or-
ganization is currently seeking to represent the li-
censed practical nurses in a broader unit than that
petitioned for does not alter the fact that, in this case,
no labor organization, including the Petitioner, is
seeking to represent the licensed practical nurses in
what we have found to be an appropriate bargaining
unit. Nor does the fact that some of the Employer's
technical employees may already be represented alter
the fact that the petition inappropriately seeks to rep-
resent licensed practical nurses only and not all of
the unrepresented technical employees?
Accordingly, in view of the above considerations
and for the reasons stated in St. Catherine's Hospital
of Dominican Sisters of Kenosha, Wisconsin, Inc., su-
2 The Employers registered nurses are also separately represented.
3 We do not mean to imply nor do we find it necessary herein to consider
or pass upon the issue of whether we would , in fact, find appropriate a unit
consisting of all of the Employer's unrepresented technical employees. We
leave that matter to subsequent proceedings , if any.
219 NLRB No. 111
SACRED HEART GENERAL HOSPITAL 967
pra.4 we conclude that the petitioned-for unit limited censed practical nurses, we shall dismiss the petition.5
to licensed practical nurses employed by the Employ-
er is inappropriate. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has ORDER
specifically indicated that it is not willing to partici-
pate in an election in any broader unit including li- It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
5 Member Penello joins in the above dismissal for the reasons stated in his
° See also Nathan & Miriam Barnert Memorial Hospital Association d/b/a partial dissent in St Catherine's Hospital of Dominican Sisters of Kenosha,
Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, 217 NLRB No. 132 (1975), and Newing- Wisconsin, Inc, supra. See also his dissent in Mount Airy Foundation, d/b/a
ton Children's Hospital, 217 NLRB No. 134 (1975). Mount Airy Psychiatric Center, 217 NLRB No 137 (1975), and the dissents
in Barnert Memorial Hospital Center, supra, and Newington Children's Hospi-
tal, supra