University Of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 22, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 1032 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics , an orga-
nizational unit of the University of Chicago and
University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics House-
staff Association, Petitioner . Case 13-RC-13599
April 22, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held on various dates before Hearing
Officer James H. Warmoth. Following the hearing
and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National La-
bor 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 Board for decision.
Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief, and the Peti-
tioner filed an outline to supplement its oral argu-
ment which appears in the official transcript of the
hearing which took place in the above-entitled mat-
ter.' Both the Employer's brief and the Petitioner's
oral argument and supplementary outline have been
duly considered.
On September 3, 1975, the Board, having de-
termined that this and a number of other cases in the
health care industry presented issues of importance
in the administration of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, scheduled oral argument in
several of these cases, including this one. Oral argu-
ments were heard on September 8, 1975. Briefs amici
curiae were filed by interested parties and have been
duly considered.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
On the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The University of Chicago Hospitals and Clin-
ics, an organizational unit of the University of Chica-
go, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, provides
educational, research, and patient care services. Dur-
ing the past year, the University of Chicago derived a
gross volume of business in excess of $1 million and
the University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics de-
rived a gross volume of business in excess of
$500,000. During the same period, the University of
Chicago and the University of Chicago Hospitals
and Clinics both purchased and received goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points located outside the State of Illinois. The par-
ties have stipulated, and we find, that the Employer
1 With the Board's consent, Association of American Medical Colleges
submitted an amicus curiae brief, which has also been carefully considered.
is engaged in commerce. Accordingly, we find that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The Employer refused to stipulate that the Peti-
tioner is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act. The Petitioner's constitution
states that its purpose is to provide a unified voice for
the Employer's interns, residents, and fellows in or-
der to improve the quality of patient care and the
professional and social relationships within the medi-
cal center, and in order to provide an organized rep-
resentative bargaining unit whereby housestaff may
negotiate the matters of working conditions, salary,
and appropriate work duties with its employer. As we
find hereinafter that the interns, residents, and fel-
lows are not "employees" within the meaning of the
Act, and the record shows that the Petitioner is com-
posed solely and exclusively of interns, residents, and
fellows at the University of Chicago Hospitals and
Clinics,' we find, for the purpose of this proceeding,
that the Petitioner is not a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
The Petitioner herein seeks to represent a unit of
interns and residents at the University of Chicago
Hospitals and Clinics.3 The Employer contends that
such a unit is inappropriate because, inter alia, these
interns and residents are students of the University,
rather than employees. For the reasons set forth in
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center,4 we find merit in the
Employer's position. In Cedar-Sinai, the Board found
that interns, residents, and clinical fellows, although
they possess certain employee characteristics, are pri-
marily students, and therefore concluded that they
are not employees within the meaning of Section 2(3)
of the Act. The interns and residents involved herein
are not unlike those interns and residents involved in
Cedars-Sinai. Therefore, we conclude that they are
primarily students. Accordingly, as no question af-
fecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of "employees" of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act, we shall dismiss
the petition herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
2 The record shows that membership is open to all interns, residents, and
fellows as voting members , and to all medical students in their clinical years
as nonvoting members.
3 The Petitioner does not seek to represent fellows.
223 NLRB 251 (1976).
223 NLRB No. 154
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO HOSPITALS 1033
MEMBER FANNING , dissenting: and residents, clearly, perform a service for the train-
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in ing institution, for which they are compensated by
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 223 NLRB 251 (1976), I that training institution . They are, therefore, employ-
dissent from the dismissal of this petition . Interns ees.