International Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 474, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.

• Citation: 259 U.S.App.D.C. 168,814 F.2d 697
• Decision Date: 20 March 1987
• Docket Number: AFL-CI,P,No. 85-1642,85-1642
• Parties: 124 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2993, 259 U.S.App.D.C. 168, 55 USLW 2530, 106 Lab.Cas. P 12,256 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 474,etitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, St. Francis Hospital, Inc., Intervenor.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Page 697

814 F.2d 697

124 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2993, 259 U.S.App.D.C.

168, 55 USLW 2530,

106 Lab.Cas. P 12,256

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 474, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent St. Francis Hospital, Inc., Intervenor.

No. 85-1642.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Oct. 23, 1986.

Decided March 20, 1987.

Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor relations board.

Allen S. Blair, with whom James R. Newsom, III, Memphis, Tenn., Laurence J. Cohen, David M. Silberman and Laurence Gold, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for petitioner.

Victoria A. Higman, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent.

James V. Coggin, Jr., Memphis, Tenn., was on brief, for intervenor, St. Francis Hosp.

George Kaufmann, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for amicus curiae, American Nurses' Ass'n, urging remand to the N.L.R.B.

Bruce P. Saypol, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for amicus curiae, American Hosp. Ass'n, urging the denial of the petition for review.

Before EDWARDS and BUCKLEY, Circuit Judges, and JOYCE HENS GREEN, ^* District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge EDWARDS.

Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge BUCKLEY.

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

This petition for review challenges a dismissal by the National Labor Relations Board ("Board") of an unfair labor practice complaint charging the intervenor, St. Francis Hospital (the "Hospital"), with an unlawful refusal to bargain. St. Francis Hosp., 271 N.L.R.B. 948 (1984) ("St. Francis II "). In a prior decision, St. Francis In the decision we review today, St. Francis II, 271 N.L.R.B. 948 (1984), the Board has reconsidered its initial designation of the maintenance unit. The Board has now concluded that the 1974 Amendments to the Act require it to apply a standard stricter than the traditional community-of-interest criteria when determining appropriate bargaining units in nonprofit health-care institutions. Specifically, the Board's latest decision holds that the 1974 Amendments mandate a "disparity-of-interest" standard. Thus, the Board now apparently presumes that there are only two appropriate units in the health-care industry (professional and nonprofessional), see note 25 infra, and it requires "sharper than usual differences (or 'disparities') between the wages, hours, and working conditions, etc., of the requested employees and those in the overall professional or nonprofessional unit" in order to certify a unit other than one presumed to be valid. 271 N.L.R.B. at 953. Under this revised legal standard, the Board dismissed the unfair labor practice complaint against the Hospital, finding that the maintenance unit did not possess the requisite disparity-of-interest to justify separate representation. ⁵

                Hospital, 265 N.L.R.B. 1025 (1982) ("St. Francis I" ), the Board upheld a Regional Director's designation of a bargaining unit of the Hospital's maintenance personnel.  Shortly thereafter, the maintenance employees elected the petitioner, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 474 ("IBEW" or the "Union"), as their bargaining representative. 1   The Hospital refused to bargain with the Union, however, maintaining that the maintenance unit was inappropriate.  The Hospital argued that when Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act (the "Act" or "NLRA") in 1974 (the "1974 Amendments") 2 to cover nonprofit health-care employees, Congress had precluded the Board from determining appropriate bargaining units in nonprofit health-care institutions under traditional "community-of-interest" principles. 3   The General Counsel for the Board issued an unfair labor practice complaint against the Hospital and moved for summary judgment. 4
                

Under section 9 of the Act, ⁶ the Board possesses broad discretion to determine employee units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. ⁷ This court cannot, however, sustain a unit determination by the Board "where it is based not on the agency's own judgment but on an erroneous view of the law." Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 947 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 313, 88 L.Ed.2d 294 (1985); see SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94-95, 63 S.Ct. 454, 462-63, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1942). We believe that in St. Francis II the Board failed to exercise its discretion under section 9 and instead rested its decision on a faulty legal premise. The Board ignored fundamental principles of statutory interpretation when it found that the 1974 Amendments to the Act mandate the disparity-of-interest standard. While the House and the Senate Committee Reports and statements by individual legislators express some concern over proliferation of bargaining units in health-care institutions, Congress, in the final analysis, decided against modifying section 9 of the Act. ⁸ Although legislative history may give meaning to ambiguous

                statutory provisions, courts have no authority to enforce alleged principles gleaned solely from legislative history that has no statutory reference point. 9   Accordingly, we remand this case under the principles of SEC v. Chenery, as applied to the Board in our recent decision in Prill v. NLRB.    We express no opinion on the proper outcome of this case;  we merely find that the Board failed to exercise the discretion granted to it by Congress under section 9 and instead rested its decision on a fundamental misinterpretation of the 1974 Amendments to the Act
                

II. BACKGROUND

A. Legislative History of the 1974 Amendments to the Act

Section 7 of the Act provides that "[e]mployees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations [and] to bargain collectively...." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 157 (1982). Under the Act, one way for a union to gain recognition for purposes of collective bargaining is to petition the Board for a certification election among employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. NLRA Sec. 9, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 159 (1982). The Act sets forth relatively few standards to guide the Board in its certification of collective bargaining units, and therefore in this area the Board possesses broad discretion. Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers, Local No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 171-72, 92 S.Ct. 383, 393-94, 30 L.Ed.2d 341 (1971). The Board must determine whether an "employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof" constitutes an "appropriate" employee unit for collective bargaining. ¹⁰ NLRA Sec. 9(b), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 159(b) (1982). Section 9(b) defines a "unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining" as one which "assure[s] to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by ... [the] Act." Id. In certifying a bargaining unit, however, the Board shall not find controlling "the extent to which the employees have organized." NLRA Sec. 9(c)(5), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 159(c)(5) (1982). In enforcing the Act--except in special cases (for example, involving "professional" employees)--the Board has consistently adhered to a community-of-interest test in defining appropriate units for collective bargaining. See, e.g., American Cyanamid Co., 131 N.L.R.B. 909, 910 (1961). Under this test, the Board has followed a long-standing policy of holding "that 'employees with similar interests shall be placed in the same bargaining unit.' This factor of mutuality of interest, together with the history of collective bargaining in the particular plant or industry involved, is given great weight by the Board in deciding any unit controversy...." 1948 NLRB Ann.Rep. 36 (1949) (citing In re Chrysler Corp., 76 N.L.R.B. 55, 58-59 (1948)). See note 15 infra.

In 1974, Congress amended the Act to cover nonprofit health-care institutions. ¹¹ Act of July 26, 1974, Pub.L. No. 93-360, 88 Stat. 395. The 1974 Amendments

reflected Congress' judgment that hospital care would be improved by extending the protection of the Act to nonprofit health-care employees. Congress found that wages were low and working conditions poor in the health-care industry, and that as a result, employee morale was low and employment turnover high. Congress determined that the extension of organizational and collective-bargaining rights would ameliorate these conditions and elevate the standard of patient care.

Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 497-98, 98 S.Ct. 2463, 2471-72, 57 L.Ed.2d 370 (1978) (footnotes omitted).

In extending the Act to nonprofit health-care employees, Congress recognized the potential for interruptions in patient care. It therefore enacted special provisions that lengthen the strike notice period and require federal mediation. NLRA Sec. 8(d)(A)-(C), (g), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(d)(A)-(C), (g) (1982). ¹² Congress, however, did not adopt a provision proposed by Senator Taft which would have limited the number of bargaining units in nonprofit health-care institutions to four (professional, technical, clerical, and service and maintenance) unless the employer and the union agreed otherwise. S. 2292, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973), reprinted in SEN. SUBCOMM. ON LABOR, COMM. ON LABOR & PUBLIC WELFARE, 93d CONG., 2d SESS., LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE COVERAGE OF NONPROFIT HOSPITALS UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT at 457-58 [hereinafter "LEGISLATIVE HISTORY"]. In fact, Congress did not in any way modify the section of the Act which covers bargaining units--section 9, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 159 (1982). Instead, both the House and the Senate Committee Reports contain language "agreed upon" by supporters and opponents of the Taft provision. ¹³ This legislative history reads as follows:

EFFECT ON EXISTING LAW

Bargaining Units

Due consideration should be given by the Board to preventing proliferation of...