Waterloo Surgical & Medical Group

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 321 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

WATERLOO SURGICAL & MEDICAL GROUP 321
Waterloo Surgical & Medical Group and Nursing
Home & Hospital Division , Local No. 1470, Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case 18-RC-10023
September 17, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY , 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 Craig D. Leffler. Fol-
lowing the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Re-
gulations, Series 8, as amended, this case was transfer-
red to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the
Petitioner and the Employer filed briefs.
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 Hearing Officer's re-
port and the briefs of the parties.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Petitioner seeks to represent certain employ-
ees of Waterloo Surgical and Medical Group. In its
brief, the Petitioner contends, inter alia, that the im-
pact of the Employer's operations on interstate com-
merce is sufficient to warrant the assertion of the
Board's jurisdiction. However, the Employer con-
tends that its practice is essentially local in character
and that the impact of that practice on commerce is
not sufficiently substantial to warrant assertion of ju-
risdiction by the Board.
Waterloo Surgical and Medical Group is a partner-
ship engaged in the practice of medicine located in
Waterloo, Iowa. The group consists of four general
practitioners and four surgeons, of whom seven are
partners and one is associated with the group but is
not a partner.
During the 12-month period ending January 31,
1974, the Employer's gross volume of business was
$1,359,226.79, and gross receipts were $1,327,300.40.
During that period, it made purchases from States
other than Iowa in the sum of $33,156.28. The clinic
treated 8,245 patients in this period of time, including
97 who were residents of States other than Iowa; re-
ceipts from the out-of-state patients were $4,768.10.
The doctors in the group function as the examining
physicians for the Illinois Central Railroad and, dur-
ing that same period, conducted approximately 200
physical examinations of that railroad's employees. In
addition, the clinic is the main source of medical serv-
ices for Rath Packing Company, and, during the 12-
month period, the business conducted with that com-
pany generated $68,653.87.1 It was testified that the
medical group is designated as the physicians for a
number of other unidentified industrial and service
companies in the area. Two of the doctors are desig-
nated as the official doctors of the Federal Aviation
Administration 2 for the Waterloo area. In addition,
the medical group received $17,424.56 in payments
from Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Iowa; $175,369 from
other insurance companies; $29,438 from public wel-
fare agencies; and $9,281 in Federal Medicare pay-
ments.
We find, on these facts, that the impact of the
Employer's medical practice on commerce is suffi-
ciently substantial to warrant assertion of our jurisdic-
tion herein, and that it will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to do so.3
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated to the appropriateness of
a unit including all full-time and regular part-time
employees of the Employer and excluding the busi-
ness manager, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors. Thus, it was agreed that the unit would
consist of 20 to 25 employees, including receptionists,
technicians, bookkeepers, clerks, and aides, and ex-
cluding nine registered nurses and Robert Bedard, a
supervisor. The status of several employees remained
in dispute at the close of the hearing, however.
Mona Benz is a licensed practical nurse. The Em-
ployer contends that she is a professional employee.
The Petitioner contends that she is not a professional
employee, but seeks to represent her in any case. She
is the only licensed practical nurse employed by the
Employer. Her training consisted of 1 year at a techni-
cal school. In similar cases, we have found that li-
censed practical nurses are nonprofessional
employees. Pikeville Investors, Inc., d/b/a Mountain
Manor Nursing Home, 204 NLRB 425 (1973); Jackson
Manor Nursing Home, Inc. and/or Issac Miarahi d/b/a
1 The Employer's business manager, in his testimony , gave this same
amount as the sum received in workmen 's compensation payments from all
insurance companies or employers.
2 The record refers to the Federal Aviation "Authority." We assume that
this reference should properly be to the Federal Aviation Administration.
3 Quain and Ramstad Clinic , 173 NLRB 1185 (1968).
Member Kennedy agrees with the decision herein on the facts but reserves
judgment as to whether the Board should assert jurisdiction over medical
practitioners or clinics of a more limited nature. He does not construe the
recent amendments to the Act with respect to "health care institutions" to
require the assertion of jurisdiction over the local neighborhood doctors or
clinics.
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jackson Manor Nursing Home, Snapper Creek Nursing
Home and Arch Creek Nursing Home, 194 NLRB 892
(1972); New Fern Restorium Co., 175 NLRB 871
(1969). We find that there is no basis for finding her
a professional employee as that term is defined in
Section 2(12) of the Act.
Linda Krizek is the senior bookkeeper and is one of
two people working in that department . The Employ-
er contends that she is a supervisor . The Petitioner
contends that she is a nonsupervisory employee and
properly within the unit . She does not have the au-
thority to hire , fire , or grant wage increases or time off
to the other employees . She does essentially the same
work as the other bookkeeper, except that it is her
responsibility to do the payroll , distribute the pay for
the physicians , and check over in a general way the
work of the other bookkeeper . She has worked for the
Employer approximately 2 years and receives $500 a
month ; the other bookkeeper has worked for the Em-
ployer less than a year and is paid $420. There is no
distinction in their job benefits. On these facts, we
find that Linda Krizek is not a supervisor as defined
in Section 2(11) of the Act.
Lois Brandt is the senior of two x-ray technicians.
In addition to the two x-ray technicians , there are two
lab technicians in the department . The Employer con-
tends that Brandt supervises the department ; the Peti-
tioner contends that she is not a supervisor within the
definition of the Act. Brandt earns $575 a month. This
is substantially higher than the earnings of the other
members of the department . She does not have the
authority to hire , fire , or grant wage increases or time
off; the business manager has, on some occasions
discussed applicants with her and she has, in the past,
made some recommendations concerning pay raises.
However , these latter functions are apparently per-
formed rarely and sporadically . We find that Lois
Brandt is not a supervisor within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2( 11) of the Act.
Mary Ann Downey, Elizabeth Rank , and Rita
Schaefer work an average of 24 hours a week and have
done so since the beginning of the current school year.
They are high school seniors and all have indicated
their intention to attend college in the fall of 1974.
They usually begin work at the end of the school day
and continue until the cleaning people leave and, in
addition, work on Saturday mornings . They vary their
own hours according to the amount of time they take
off for school events. The Employer contends that
they are casual employees and should be excluded
from the unit . The Petitioner contends that they are
regular part-time employees . We find that they are
regular part-time employees and we include them in
the unit . Columbia Music & Electronics, Inc., 196
NLRB 388 (1972); Kachco Corporation d/b/a Hickory
Farms of Ohio, 180 NLRB 755 (1970).
Mary Volker is a lab technician who regularly
works 4 to 5 hours 1 day a week . Volker has been with
the Employer about 2 years and had initially worked
on a full-time basis . She performs the same functions
as the other lab technicians. The Employer initially
stipulated to the inclusion of Volker in the unit but
retracted that position and now contends that she is
a regular part-time employee . On these facts , we find
that Mary Volker is a regular part-time employee and
include her in the unit . Central Florida Broadcasting
Company, 94 NLRB 473 ( 1951).
We therefore find that the following employees of
the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All full-time and regular part-time employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its Waterloo , Iowa, medi-
cal clinic , including all receptionists , technicians,
bookkeepers, clerks, aides , and licensed practical
nurses , but excluding the business manager, profes-
sional employees , guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]