Union Hospital of New Bedford, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 1, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 371 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

UNION HOSPITAL OF NEW BEDFORD, INC. 371
Union Hospital of New Bedford , Inc. and Building
Service Employees' International Union, Local 254,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-11172
November 1, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
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 Stephen S. Lewen-
berg on July 15, 1970. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, this case was transferred to the National
Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, the
Employer filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case
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 affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer operates a proprietary hospital in
New Bedford, Massachusetts. The Petitioner seeks a
unit of all the laboratory technicians employed by the
Employer, but excluding all other employees, admin-
istrative employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act. The Employer takes the position that
the only appropriate unit is one including all hourly
nonsupervisory employees. There is no bargaining
history for any of the hospital employees.)
The record shows that the Employer provides
complete hospital care. In providing these services,
the hospital, as it appears from the record, employs
265 hourly paid employees. The laboratory is admin-
istratively part of the pathology department which, in
addition to the nine laboratory technicians involved
herein, employs two EKG technicians, two clericals,
and a laboratory aide. The department is headed by a
pathologist under whom there is a supervisor who
immediately supervises all department employees,
including the laboratory technicians.
Laboratory technicians perform various tests in-
cluding blood, urine, body fluids, and body functions.
They are provided with on the job training with no
special education required. The technicians perform
their duties not only in the laboratory but also in other
parts of the hospital, including the recovery room, the
operating room, central supply, X-ray department,
and records department. They share the same benefits
as other hourly paid employees such as other
technicians, nurses, aides, clericals, and maintenance
men.
Upon the facts set forth above and the entire record
in this case, we conclude that the unit of laboratory
technicians sought herein is not composed of a
distinct and homogeneous group of employees with
interests separate from those of other employees, and
hence is not an appropriate unit. Accordingly, as no
question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
1 We reject the Petitioner 's contention that a history of bargaining for
the laboratory technicians has been established by the fact that they had
banded together in a loose coalition to present their grievances to
management.
186 NLRB No. 56