Northwoods Manor, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1982

260 N.L.R.B. 854 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DIECISI()NS ()1: NATI()NA. .AO)R RELATIO()NS IO()ARI)
Northwoods Manor, Inc. and Michigan Health Care
Associates, District 1199M, District of the Na-
tional Union Hospital and Health Care Employ-
ees Division of the Retail, Wholesale,
Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases 30-RC-3958 and 30-RC-3959
March 11, 1982
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WA'IE R ANI)
ME-.MBERS JFNKINS AND ZIMNMERM1AN
On April 29, 1981, the Regional Director for
Region 30 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tions in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
found appropriate the two units sought by Petition-
er, one of all full-time and part-time licensed practi-
cal nurses (LPNs), and the other of all full-time
and part-time registered nurses (RNs), at the Em-
ployer's Escanaba, Michigan, hospital facilities.
The Regional Director rejected the Employer's
contention that the LPNs and RNs should be ex-
cluded as supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act. Thereafter, in accordance
with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Employer filed a timely request for
review and motion to stay the elections, on the
grounds that the Regional Director made errone-
ous findings of fact and departed from officially re-
ported precedent.
By telegraphic order dated May 29, 1981, the re-
quest for review was granted, and the motion to
stay the elections was denied.
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 considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the issue under review and
makes the following findings:
The Employer is engaged in providing health
care services at its two Escanaba, Michigan, facili-
ties, Northwoods Manor and Northwoods Annex.
The Manor consists of four wings, housing ap-
proximately 100 patients. The Annex consists of
two halls, housing approximately 50 patients. The
facilities operate on a 24-hour, 7-day-per-week
basis, with staffing broken into three shifts per day.
A single administrator and in-service coordinator
serve both facilities. In addition, each facility has a
director of nursing. A total of 24 LPNs, 3 RNs,
' The electiill ',an coiducted on MN1 28, I')81. ;all 11 it hallos >cSIn
in each unit w cre impounded, pending dtsplsillol In t thil r1tc l ii t 4tr
review
and approximatly 75 aides and orderlies work in
the Manor and Annex.
Petitioner already represents a unit of the Em-
ployer's aides and orderlies. As indicated above,
Petitioner seeks to represent separate units of LPNs
and RNs. The parties have agreed that separate
units are appropriate and that the administrator, in-
service coordinator, and two directors of nursing
should be excluded from any unit as supervisory
and/or managerial employees. The Employer,
however, contends that all of the LPNs and RNs
are supervisors who must be excluded from bar-
gaining unit representation under the Act. We
agree with the Employer.
LPNs and RNs have the same duties and respon-
sibilities, insofar as their supervisory status is con-
cerned, and all are designated as "charge nurses."
At the Manor, 7 charge nurses and 23 aides staff
the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift, 5 charge nurses and 16
aides staff the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift, and 2 charge
nurses and 11 aides staff the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift.
At the Annex, the 3 shifts are staffed, respectively,
by 4 charge nurses and 12 aides, 3 charge nurses
and 8 aides, and 1 charge nurse and 6 aides. Each
charge nurse is assigned to oversee a particular
wing or hall, and is responsible for seeing that ap-
proximately three or four aides and orderlies per-
form their duties. This responsibility consumes ap-
proximately 20 percent of the charge nurses' work-
ing time. During the remainder of their time, they
provide direct patient care, receive reports on con-
ditions of patients, set up medication, call doctors
when necessary, and admit patients.
When on duty, the administrator, in-service co-
ordinator, or director of nursing assumes overall
supervisory responsibility. During shifts when none
of these officials are present, the charge nurses rep-
resent the highest ranking authority on the prem-
ises. Although the testimony is ambiguous about
when these absences occur, it appears there are at
least one shift per day during the week and two
shifts per day each weekend when charge nurses
are the highest ranking employees on duty. Al-
though charge nurses have the option to consult
with the director of nursing by telephone during
these shifts, a director testified that they have
never called her.
Charge nurses do not hire, fire, or interview ap-
plicants. They do, on the other hand, have the au-
thority to issue oral and written reprimands, and
can compel an aide to leave work early, punching
out that employee's timecard for such transgres-
sions as improper attire, disorderly behavior,
drunkenness, or unsatisfactory performance of
duties. The Employer's exhibits contain an example
of an employee's discharge based on an LPN rec-
260 NLRB No. 110
854
N()OR I I ()ODS MANO)R. INC
ommendation and another example of a written
warning issued by an LPN which informed the em-
ployee that one more offense would precipitate a
suspension followed ultimately by discharge.
A biweekly work schedule is made up by the di-
rector of nursing, but charge nurses may indepen-
dently reassign employees based on staffing needs,
employee requests, or personality conflicts. In addi-
tion, the charge nurses may independently grant
overtime, if necessary, and allow employees to
leave work early. The charge nurses call in off-
duty employees to fill staff shortages, but they do
so according to an established priority schedule
and on a noncompulsory basis.
The job descriptions for both RNs and LPNs re-
quire qualifications in leadership and supervisory
ability. Complementary job descriptions for aides
and orderlies state they are to be supervised by the
director of nursing and by charge nurses. Aides
and orderlies are also informed when hired that
they are to be supervised by charge nurses, and
these employees bring requests for reassignment,
coffeebreaks, and short-term time off to their
charge nurses.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Em-
ployer's charge nurses possess and actually exercise
supervisory authority which requires the use of in-
dependent judgment and goes beyond the mere ex-
ercising of patient care responsibilities. 2 In particu-
lar, we find that the charge nurses have the inde-
pendent authority to discipline employees and ef-
fectively to recommend discharge.3 We also find it
significant that if charge nurses are not supervisors
an unrealistic supervisor-to-employee ratio would
exist at the Employer's facilities and no statutory
Compare Wright M.tlmoriual Jlopitul. 255 Nl R I .19 (19S). , xhcere
on an cxtrcmeli similar sel of facts the BoarI found d harge lnulr'es to hbe
supervi ors under Sec 2(1 1) of the Act
'The example cited of actual disciplinar a;ction h, charge lnurses
contradict the Regional Dircltor' s finding that Ihe discipliiarr role here
is analogous to the trivial or reportorial role of LPNs who the Board
found were not supervisor, in Pin, Manor. Inc. d/h/a Pine Muanor .lur,ing
Home. 238 NL RB 1654 (1978)
supervisor at all would be present during at least
one hospital work shift daily.4
In finding that charge nurses are supervisors, we
reject the Regional Director's evaluation of evi-
dence that these individuals split their time be-
tween supervisory and patient care duties on a
20/80-percent basis. Relying on the Board's state-
ments in A. Barton Hepburn Hospital, 238 NLRB 95
(1978), and New York University, 205 NLRB 4
(1973), the Regional Director concluded that
charge nurses should not be excluded from unit
representation because they spent less than 50 per-
cent of their time supervising nonunit employees.
In the decisions cited, however, the Board held
that incidental nonunit supervisory duties of an em-
ployee whose principal duties were the same as
those of other unit employees did not create a con-
flict of interest warranting exclusion of the disput-
ed employee.5 A different situation exists when, as
here, a substantial supervisory function is a princi-
pal duty common to the entire group of employees
sought to be represented. Ordinarily, such a func-
tion would necessarily be exercised with respect to
employees outside the "unit." The absence of in-
traunit supervision or conflict of interest is there-
fore irrelevant, and the Board must ascertain
whether the supervisory duties evidenced, even if
they consume less than 50 percent of an individ-
ual's worktime, are more than merely sporadic or
irregular. We find that the supervisory duties of the
Employer's charge nurses are substantial and regu-
lar.
Because we have found that all of the Employ-
er's LPNs and RNs are supervisors who must be
excluded from bargaining unit representation under
the Act, the LPN and RN units sought by Petition-
er are inappropriate. Accordingly, we shall dismiss
the petitions.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed herein
be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
'See IfS rghi JMer ,nrial. vupra
Also see lIdelphi itniverwiv. Ii5S NL RB Oh9. 643 644 (1972