The Central Dispensary and Emergency Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1942

40 N.L.R.B. 1011 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of THE CENTRAL DISPENSARY AND EMERGENCY HOSPITAL
and BUILDING SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE WORKERS, LOCAL 120,
C. I. O.
Case No. R-3548.-Decided April 29, 1942
Jurisdiction : hospital within District of Columbia
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of quest.on re-
fusal to accord petitioner recognition , election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all nonprofessional and non-
technical employees, including all attendants, maids, orderlies, porters, time-
keepers, watchnien, telephone operators, ambulance drivers, elevator operators,
honsenien, cleaners, doormen, seamstresses, kitchen employees employed in
the dietary, and maintenance and repair employees, but excluding all pro-
fessional, technical, clerical, and supervisory employees, and all engineers and
firemen
Mr. Joseph C. McGarraghy, of Washington, D. C.. for the Hospital.
Mr. Samuel Levine, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
Mr. Harley G. Moorhead, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 7, 1941, and January 6, 1942, respectively, Building
Service and Maintenance Workers, Local 120, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, filed with
the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) a
petition and an amended petition alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
The Central Dispensary and Emergency Hospital, Washington, D. C.,
herein called the Hospital, and requesting an investigation and certi-
fication of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49.Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Ori February
4, 1942, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and Article III, Section 3,
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice. '
40 N. L. R B, No. 177.
1011'
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On February 6, 1942, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Hospital and the Union.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on February 12, 1942, at Wash-
ington, D. C., before E. K. Shawe, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Company and the Union were
represented by counsel, participated in the hearing, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Hospital -ap-
peared specially at the hearing for the purpose of moving to dismiss
the proceeding for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the Act
did not apply to the hospital operations since the Hospital was not
engaged in trade, traffic, or commerce within the meaning of the Act
and since the Hospital is a non-profit -making institution , semipublic
in character , a substantial part of its revenues being obtained from
public funds. The Hospital participated further at the hearing only
upon reservations appropriate to preserving its objections to the juris-
diction of the Board . The Trial Examiner did not rule upon the
motion to dismiss, which was directed to the Board. The Trial Ex-
aminer did make rulings on other motions and on objections to the
admission of evidence ; these rulings are hereby affirmed. The parties
requested oral argument before the Board, the request was granted,
and on March 3, 1941, the parties appeared by respective counsel be-
fore the Board and orally presented arguments directed to the issue
of the Board's jurisdiction . The Board has considered the arguments
of counsel and authorities referred to and relied upon therein. The
Hospital 's motion to dismiss is denied for reasons hereinafter set forth.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE HOSPITAL
The Central Dispensary and Emergency Hospital maintains and
operates a general hospital in the city of Washington , District of
Columbia. The hospital building contains 280 beds in private and
semiprivate rooms and in wards ; it also contains door space leased to
a firm of private doctors who there operate X-ray equipment, paying
the Hospital an annual rental of $6,600 and agreeing to do some charity
work. The Hospital provides facilities for treating medical and sur-
gical cases , excluding contagious and obstetrical cases; it handles
emergency cases and for that purpose maintains , and operates two
ambulances ; it also maintains a dispensary . The Hospital is one of
the District 's largest , and 10 percent of its patients come to it from
Virginia and Maryland .. In the year 1940 the income which the Hos-
pital received for the treatment of patients exceeded $594,000, and
the Hospital also receives an income from a centrally located parking
lot in Washington and from other investments and from gifts and
THE CENTRAL DISPENSARY AND EMERGENCY HOSPITAL 1013
endowments. The Hospital employs 120 professional employees and
2230 nonprofessional employees.
The Hospital purchases materials and supplies at a cost of approxi-
mately $20,000 a month. About 25 percent of these are purchased
outside of the District and delivered directly from points outside of
the District; about 75 percent are purchased from local dealers, and
these materials and supplies also originate outside the District. The
Hospital receives bids for some of its supply purchases, for others it
deals as a member of a buyers' group.
The income and loss from operation of the Hospital divides roughly
into three groups of patients, namely, private patients, commercial
contract patients, and government or charity patients. The Hospital
makes a profit in its dealings with private patients, who contribute
approximately 50 percent of its business; it makes little or no profit in,
servicing patients who come to it pursuant to compensation or group
health contracts, representing about 30 percent of its business; it loses
about 50 percent of its costs in treating patients who came to it
pursuant to contracts or agreements entered into severally with gov-
ernment agencies and the Community Chest, representing about 20
percent of its business. The exact nature of the Hospital's contracts
or agreements with the Community Chest, which provided about 41/2
percent of_its 1940 income, and with Health Security Administration,
which provided 2 percent of its 1940 income, does not appear in the
record. The income and loss from the Hospital's contract with the
Health Department of the District of Columbia, in accordance with
which the Hospital received about 111/2 percent' of its 1940 income, is
clearly established. In its appropriation for the District, Congress
allots specific sums for the Hospital and for other hospitals in the
District, amounts which are to be paid in accordance with contracts
the hospitals have entered into with the Health Department of the
District." The amounts by which the Hospital's costs exceed its re-
turn under this contract and under its agreements with Health
I In its appropriation, 54 Stat 323, Congress appropriated $80,000 for the Hospital,
including $25,000 for George Washington Univeisity clinic,, all to be paid in accordance
with District Health Department annual contracts These contracts are divided in three
parts, as follows • 1 Hospitalization for emergency cases ; Emergency treatments ; x-ray
service ; Ambulance service. 2 Clinic visits ; Redressings. 3 A lump sum appropriation
to reimburse the Hospital for personal services of its out-patient department employees,
including surgeons and doctors of the George Washington School of Medicine assigned to
the clinic for student training
The services furnished under parts 1 and 2, above, are upon the certification of the
Permit Bureau of the Health Department and are on an earned basis The income and
cost for specific services are given below
Ward care------------------------------------------
Income
$2.90
Ewpenae
$5 56
Clinic visits , including lump sum appropriation for
personnel----------------------------------------- .75 1.16
Ambulance runs--- --------------------------------- 1.00 2.60
Emergency room treatments ------------------------- . 65 1'51
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Security Administration and Washington Community Chest total
approximately $100,000 a year, and the Hospital contends that-this
rendering of service at a loss establishes its status as a charitable
institution. The other contracts which the Hospital entered into for
service to group health and compensation cases were, at the time they
were negotiated, calculated to return to the Hospital its costs, or a
little more.2 Private patients are charged at a rate which returns
a profit. In 1940 the Hospital made an operating profit of $750.
Although it incurred an operating loss in 1941, this loss was more than
recouped by the Hospital's return from its investments and the Hos-
pital's books for 1941 showed a net profit.
The Hospital was incorporated under articles which recite : "That
the particular object of the association or society is to provide a
,,suitable building in the City of Washington, District of Columbia,
for a dispensary where all needy persons, without distinction, may
be provided gratuitously with medical and surgical service and treat-
ment and with medicine." The Hospital has expanded in activity
and size since its incorporation ,in 1882,'and although it still operates
under a charter which contains this provision, the superintendent of
'the Hospital stated that the charter had become obsolete. The,Hos-
pital now does a negligible amount of pure charity where no fees
are charged. It collects what it can from indigent cases.
The District of Columbia Wage Board has issued an order inter-
preting the Minimum Wage Act of the District as applicable to
female employees of the Hospital.' The Hospital observes the re-
strictions of the act; but contends that its compliance is voluntary.
Other non-profit-making organizations which operate in the District
have entered into several contracts with a union certified in each case
by the Board.4
The Hospital contends that it is not engaged in trade, traffic, or
commerce within the meaning of the Act. It does import from points
outside of the District of Columbia each month materials and supplies
valued at approximately $5,000, but jurisdiction of the Board does
not depend upon these facts relevant to commerce between the District
3 Group health patients were treated at ' a charge of $5 00 a day until October or
November 1941 ; the late was then raised to $5 50 a day , and it has subsequently been
raised to $ 600 a day The return for treating compensation cases is not quite equal to the
expense of $5 56 a day , and the Hospital is seeking a rate increase.
3 In the course of its administration of this Act, 40 Stat 960, the wage Board entered
Order Number 4, "Public Housekeeping Minimum Wage Order " It therein defined the
term "public housekeeping " to include inter aha the work of waitresses , cooks , kitchen
help, chambermaids , linen-room girls , charwomen , cleaners , telephone operators , elevator
operators , and also ". . all such non -professional workers as may be properly classified
in this occupation in the following . . . (13) hospitals "
4 Navy Cafeteria , Young Women ' s Christian Association, and Welfare and Recreational
Association have each entered into contracts with United Cafeteria Employees' Local 471
(C I 0 ) subsequent to Board proceedings in which jurisdiction of the Boaid was not
challenged
THE CENTRAL DISPENSARY AND EMERGENCY HOSPITAL 1015
of Columbia and the several States. The Hospital operates within
the District of Columbia. Congress legislates for the District of
Columbia under powers granted by the Constitution in the commerce
clause, but it also legislates for the District under plenary powers
similar to those which a State may exercise within its own territory.',
In National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S. 601, Mr.
Justice Stone stated that the National Labor Relations Act -was in-
tended by Congress to extend to the reaches of its Constitutional
power.
We do not find merit in the Hospital's contention that the juris-
dictional words of the Act "trade, traffic, commerce, transportation
or communication" are inappropriate to describe the activities of the
Hospital. In U. S. v. American Medical Associationl,,s the Associa-
tion, which was charged with violation of the Sherman Act, con-
tended that restraint of trade was not a concept applicable to the
medical profession and to certain alleged activities, including re-
straint practiced by excluding doctors from the use of hospital facil-
ities. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the alleged activities
of the Association constituted restraint of trade, stating that the
phrase "restraint of trade" had developed a meaning which covered
any occupation in which men engaged for a livelihood. In the
present case the Hospital pursues its various activities for a liveli-
hood only in the sense that it seeks to maintain corporate existence
as a going concern, but we note from the American Medical Associa-
tion case that the word "trade" need not exclude from its meaning
all medical and hospital activity. Nor can we hold that the Hospital
is not engaged in transportation.' The ambulances which the Hos-
pital operates in aid of its emergency business are engaged in a
Constitution of U S , Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 17 ; Atlantic Cleaners rf Dyers v U S , 286
U S 427; see also Neild v District of Columbia , App D C 110 F (2d) 246 In Atlantic
Cleaners if Dyers v U S, cleaners and dyers were charged with violation of Section 3 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act with respect to the business they carried on in the District of
Columbia The Supreme Couit assumed without deciding that "trade or commerce" would
not apply to service industries like that of defendants , insofar as commerce among the
several States was contemplated , but it held that the same words required a broader
construction in a section of the Act dealing with commerce within the Disti ict The
Court stated that Congress had intended the Act to apply to the extent of the Constitu-
tional power granted Congress , and held that the act did apply to the business of de-
fendants carried on in the District In the National Labor Relations Act Congress did
not enact a separate section applicable to trade or commeice carried on in the District,
but it did increase the categories of jurisdictional activity beyond " trade or commeice" as
phrased in the Sherman Act, and made the National Labor Relations Act applicable to
"trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication . . . within the District of
Columbia . .
'App D C, 110 F ( 2d) 703 -
'The Hospital in its argument has not noted that the Act confers jurisdiction over
transportation and communication within the District The communication engaged in
by the Hospital is no doubt collateral and incidental , but we note that it employs persons
to serve as telephone operators and publishes certain pamphlets in the course of its
business.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
specialized form of transportation, but it is important transportation
carried on by the Hospital on a fee basis. More determinative is the
general nature of hospital business, which has been held by the United
States Supreme Court to constitute trade or commerce as the words
are used in conjunction with each other. In Jordan v. Tashior, 278
U. S. 116, the Supreme Court held that the buying of land for the
purpose of operating a general hospital was within the meaning of
the words "trade" and "commerce" used in conjunction with each
other." The general nature of hospital business is hence within 'the
meaning of trade or commerce.
The fact that the Hospital is not operated for the purpose of re-
turning a profit to its owners is stressed by counsel for the Hospital,
but we are cited to no cases holding that the power conferred on
Congress in the commerce clause is limited to interstate transactions
entered into with motive of financial gain. Statements or holdings
to the contrary appear in numerous decisions.9 Adverting to the
transactions in which the Hospital purchases goods with which to
carry on its activities, we discover that the Hospital is entering into
the latter transactions with vendors whose activity is presumably
in every sense commercial. We are, of the opinion that the trans-
actions entered into with such vendors do not lose their commercial
character, even if we assume that the Hospital engages in th6m with
a motive other than for profit. The commerce clause looks to the
activities which are carried on, rather than to motives. The juris-
diction-conferring words of the National Labor Relations Act, "trade,
traffic, commerce, transportation or communication" are words of
activity, and when used together do not give a connotation of essential
motives. The activities of the Hospital, even if they should be re-
garded as non-profit-making, are within reach of the power of
Congress and the terms, used by it in conferring jurisdiction on the
Board.
The Hospital contends that it is a charitable institution; but neither
charitable institutions nor their employees are exempted from opera-
8 In this case the State of California was resisting the efforts of certain citizens of
Japan who were seeking to form a corporation which was to buy land and thereon
operate a general hospital . The State contended that the aliens could not take title to
the land in the corporation, even though they might incorporate ; the aliens contended
that power to hold land for the hospital was contemplated in a treaty between United
States and Japan , wherein respective foreign subjects were granted the right to engage
in trade or commerce in the respective countries . The Supreme Court of the United
States upheld the contention of the Japanese aliens
9 See, for example , Associated Press v N L . R B., 301 U. S 103 , 128-9; U. S. v. Hill,
248 U S 420 ; see also International Text Book Co v Pigg, 217 U. S. 91, 93 In
Camanettti v. U S, 242 U. S . 470, the Supreme Couit held that the use of the word
"traffic" in the title of the White Slave Traffic Act did not indicate that Congress
intended that act to apply only to transportation undertaken with a profit motive.
I
THE CENTRAL DISPE2 SARY AND EMERGENCY HOSPITAL 1017
tion of the Act by its terms, although certain other employers 10 and
employees 11 are exempted. If Congress did not intend to except
charities from the scope of the Act, an exact determination of the
Hospital's status in this respect becomes immaterial. We may note
in passing, however, that the Hospital does practically no business
without compensation, and that only one-fifth of its business is car-
ried on with the exception of financial loss. The Hospital's obsolete
charter still recites that the Hospital exists for the purpose of render-
ing medical service and dispensing medicines gratuitously, but the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia -has held that
the purpose recited in the charter is immaterial, that it is what the
Hospital does that determines its nature. White v. Central Dis-
pensary and Emergency Hospital.12 In the same case the Court
held that the fact Congress appropriates money for the Hospital does
not prove it to be a charity, but only that the Hospital is a worthy
cause, like the merchant marine, for example 13
The Hospital has cited to us cases wherein State courts have de-
cided that application of labor legislation to hospitals and their
employees would be contrary to the public policy of the State." We
do not find declaration or persuasive analogy that a similar public
policy exists in and for the District of Columbia. In the minimum
wage law applicable to the District, Congress did not exempt hos-
pitals, and the District Wage Board in its interpretation of that laiv
specifically ruled that employees of District hospitals were included
among those protected thereby.15 Congress did not exclude employees
of charitable institutions or hospitals from the operation of the work-
men's compensation act.16 Nor have courts of the District decided
that hospitals and charitable institutions are not liable for their
10 Section 2 (2), ". . the United States, or any State or political subdivision thereof,
or any person subject to the Railway Labor Act, as amended from time to time, or any
labor organization . . ., or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such
labor organization "
The Hospital states that it is semipublic , and relies on the fact that it receives from
the United States by appropriation of Congress money which is disbursed according to
contracts entered into by the hospital and the District Health Department The fact
that the Ilospial may render valuable services , or that the United States, conceivably
and if necessary , might take over and operate the Hospital , does not alter the contractual
nature of the relationship See N. L. R B v W. H Carroll, 1 Cir, 120 F (2d) 457;
see and cf U S v Bethlehem Steel Corp , decided February 16, 1942 The Hospital
may contemplate loss under the contracts ; but this is insufficient to bring the Hospital
within the exemption accorded to the United States in Section 2 (2).
" Section 2 ( 3), ". any individual employed as an agricultural laborer , or in the
domestic service of any family or person at his home , or any individual employed by his
parent or spouse."
12 99, F (2d) 355 , 119 A L R 1002
° Recognition of the Hospital ' s charitable activities in past years has been accorded
to the Hospital by District tax authorities , who have granted it an exemption from taxes
on hospital property . The propriety of this exemption is now being reexamined.
14 Western Pennsylvania Hospital v Ltehhter, 340 Pa. 382 , 17 Atl. (2d) 206, 132
A. L. R. 1146; Jewish Hospital v. Doe, 252 App. Div 551, 300 N. Y Supp 1111.
m Pub . No. 215 , 65th Cong ., 40 Stat 960 ; Wage Board Order No 4
ii District of Columbia Code, 36-502; 45 Stat . 600, 52 Stat 689.
1018 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
torts. 1 We have considered the cases cited to us by counsel for the
Hospital, but find therein no reason why we should construe the
National Labor Relations Act as inapplicable to hospitals operating
in the District of Columbia. Hospitals operating in the District of
Columbia are held responsible for acts incident to their operation,
and in our opinion this responsibility should extend to rights ac-
corded to employees by the National Labor Relations Act. As the
Supreme Court of Minnesota pointed out in Northwestern Hospital v.
Union,"' employees of hospitals, like employees of automobile fac-
tories, must live upon their wages. And as a New York Court
pointed out in New York Labor Relations Board v. McChesney,1°
the right of hospital employees to strike or to join a union does not
depend upon a labor relations act.
The Hospital, within the District of Columbia, engages in many
business transactions and operates as a large business, purchasing
material and supplies at a cost of $20,000 monthly and balancing its
books at a figure close to half a million dollars annually. Ex-
clusive of employees not involved herein it employs approximately
230 persons, and reference to the categories of employees set forth
in Section V, herein, will reveal that the Hospital employs many
persons who do the same work as that which is carried on in the
course of many different private businesses. The Supreme Court
of the United States has stated that Congress intended the National
Labor Relations Act to extend to the reaches of the Constitutional
power of Congress, and we find no good and valid reason to deny
to the employees of the Hospital the benefits of the Act. We find
that the operations of the Hospital constitute trade, traffic, commerce,
and transportation between the several States and the District of
Columbia and within the District of Columbia, and accordingly de-
cide 20 that the Act confers jurisdiction over the Hospital and its
employees.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Building Service and Maintenance Workers, Local 120, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organi-
- ' In Hughes v President and Directors of Georgetown College, 33 F. Supp. 867, the
Court , in considering whether a hospital in the District was liable for the negligence of
its employees, noted that the rule exempting charities from liability for such negligence
is based on public policy , and, without discussion of the public policy obtaining in the
Distuct, followed the general rule which limits the exemption to cases wherein the
injured person is a beneficiary of the charity being administered The Court applied
this rule to permit a private nurse of a patient to recover , and in so doing relied upon
the view which it stated the cases strongly support , that employees of a hospital are
not beneficiaries of the hospital 's charity , but are strangers to it See also Andrews v.
Y M C A., 226 Iowa 373. 284 N W 186, upon which the Court relied.
18 208 Minn 384, 294,N W 215
19175 Misc 95„ 27 N Y Supp (2d) 866 ( Aff'd without opinion, Id, 870).
20 See U S v . Darby, 312 U. S . 100, 120.
THE CENTRAL DISPENSARY AND EMERGENCY HOSPITAL 1019
zation admitting to membership the nonprofessional employees of
the Hospital.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On- September 24, 1941, the Union by letter requested the Hospital
to recognize it as, collective bargaining representative of the non-
professional employees. The Hospital made no response until after
the Union had filed its petition in this proceeding. On November
24, 1941, the attorney for the Hospital by letter notified the Board
and the Union that the Executive Committee of the Hospital would
not recognize the Union nor acknowledge that the Board had juris-
diction. Evidence introduced at the hearing indicates that the Union
represents a substantial number of the nonprofessional employees of
the Hospital.21
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of the employees of the Hospital.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Hospital described
in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, commerce, and transportation between the several States
and the District of Columbia and within the District of Columbia, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
- The Union and the Hospital have agreed and we find that all non-
professional and nontechnical employees, including all attendants,
maids, orderlies, porters, timekeepers, watchmen, telephone operators,
ambulance drivers, elevator operators, housemen, cleaners, doormen,
seamstresses, kitchen employees employed in the dietary, and mainte-
nance and repair employees, but excluding all professional, technical,
clerical, and supervisory employees, and all engineers and firemen,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective 'bargain-
incr. We further find that said unit will insure to employees of the
Hospital the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to
21 The Regional Director reported that prior to the hearing he had examined 144
cards authorizing the Union to represent employees of the Hospital At the hearing
the Hospital produced its pay roll for January 31, 1942 . and the Trial Examiner found
on examination of the cards and the pay roll that each of 96 employees whose names
appeared on this pay roll had signed a card There are 202 employees in the unit
herein found appropriate
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective bargaining and otherwise will effectuate the policies of
the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. The Union
contends that eligibility to vote in the election should be determined
on the basis of a Company pay roll for the period of the first or
second week in November 1941, stating that members of the Union
who were then employees of the Hospital have subsequently been
discharged: The Union has not filed charges against the Hospital,
however, and we find, in accordance with our usual policy, that
eligibility to vote in the election should be determined from the pay
roll of the Hospital for the period next preceding the date of the
Direction of Election. We shall direct that the employees of the
Hospital eligible to vote in the election shall be those in the appro-
priate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period next pre-
ceding the date of the Direction, subject to the limitations and
additions set forth in the Direction.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
iecord in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of The Central Dispensary and Emergency
Hospital, Washington, D. C., within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All nonprofessional and nontechnical employees of the Hospital,
including all attendants, maids, orderlies, porters, timekeepers, watch-
men, telephone operators, ambulance drivers, elevator operators, house-
men, cleaners, doormen, seamstresses, kitchen employees employed in
the dietary, and maintenance and repair employees, but excluding all
professional, technical, clerical, and supervisory employees, and all
engineeers and firemen, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board, by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
it is hereby
THE CENTRAL DISPENSARY AND EMERGENCY HOSPITAL 1021
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the
Board to ascertain representatives for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with The Central Dispensary and Emergency Hospital, Wash-
ington, D. C., an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early
as possible, but not later than. thirty (30) days from the date of
this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III,
Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all nonprofessional
and nontechnical employees of the Hospital, Washington, D. C., who
were employed by the Hospital during the pay-roll period immedi-
ately preceding the date of this Direction, including all attendants,
maids, orderlies, porters, timekeepers, watchmen, telephone operators;
ambulance drivers, elevator operators, housemen, cleaners, doormen,
seamstresses, kitchen employees employed in the dietary, maintenance
and repair employees, and employees who did not work during such
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or in the active
military service or, training of the United States, or temporarily laid
off, but excluding all professional, technical, clerical, and supervisory
employees, all engineers and firemen, and employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented by Building Service and Maintenance Work-
ers, Local 120, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, for the purpose of collective bargaining.