Medical Center at Bowling Green v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 82-1437

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore KEITH and MERRITT; PER CURIAM
Citation712 F.2d 1091
Parties114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2159, 98 Lab.Cas. P 10,346 MEDICAL CENTER AT BOWLING GREEN, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Docket Number82-1566,Nos. 82-1437
Decision Date04 August 1983

Page 1091

712 F.2d 1091
114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2159, 98 Lab.Cas. P 10,346
MEDICAL CENTER AT BOWLING GREEN, Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Nos. 82-1437, 82-1566.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Argued June 16, 1983.
Decided Aug. 4, 1983.

Page 1092

Herman L. Allison (argued), Constangy, Brooks & Smith, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Miriam Szapiro (argued), N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before KEITH and MERRITT, Circuit Judges and ALLEN, * Chief Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the court upon the petition of the Medical Center at Bowling Green to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The order, which is reported at 261 N.L.R.B. 120 (1982), directs the Medical Center to bargain with a Nursing Union. The Board cross-petitions for enforcement of its order.

The Medical Center at Bowling Green (the Center) is a Kentucky corporation which operates a non-profit hospital. The present controversy arose from a union organizing drive by the hospital's nursing employees. The organizing campaign began on March 5, 1981 when the Kentucky Nurses Association filed a representation petition with the Board seeking certification as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Medical Center's registered nurses. On March 18, the Board conducted a hearing on the petition to determine the scope of the bargaining unit. At that time, the Center raised questions regarding whether certain job classifications should be included or excluded from the unit. Of particular concern were those employees classified as licensed practical nurses, emergency room registered nurses, home care registered nurses and unit directors. With respect to the unit directors, the Center took the position that they are statutory supervisors and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

On April 16, 1982, the Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election in which he defined the unit as follows:

All registered nurses employed by [the Center] at its Bowling Green, Kentucky hospital, excluding all other employees, all office clerical employees, and all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

The Director further stated: "Inasmuch as the evidence with regard to the supervisory status of unit directors is contradictory in nature, and is, in some respects, lacking in detail, I am unable to determine with any degree of certainty whether unit directors are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act." Based on the foregoing, the decision specified that the seventeen unit directors be permitted to vote in the election with the proviso that their vote would be subject to challenge.

The Center filed a request on April 27, 1981 for a review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election. An objection was specifically raised to that part of the decision which permitted unit directors to vote subject to challenge. On May 14, 1981, the Board denied the Center's

Page 1093

request, finding that no substantial issues were presented which warranted review. A secret ballot election was held that same day. The ballots revealed that ninety-four voters favored representation by the Association, and that twenty-two voters had not favored representation. There were twenty-seven challenged ballots.

Shortly thereafter, the Center filed a timely objection to the election. The Regional Director conducted an administrative investigation. On June 30, 1981, the Regional Director issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative in which he overruled the Center's objections to the election. A request for review of the supplemental decision was denied.

On October 12, 1981, the Association wrote a letter to the Center requesting collective bargaining. The Center did not comply with the request. An Unfair Labor Practice charge was filed by the union on January 13, 1982. The Regional Director issued a complaint fourteen days later. In its answer, the Center admitted that it refused to bargain, but contended that the Association was improperly certified.

A decision and Order was issued on May 12, 1982 finding that the Center violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the union. The Board ordered the Hospital to cease and desist from any unfair labor practices that interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their statutory rights. The Order also affirmatively required the Center to bargain with the union upon request.

In challenging the Board's order, the Center raises...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Williamson Piggly Wiggly v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 86-5800
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • October 16, 1987
    ...is afforded broad discretion in determining whether an employee is a "supervisor." E.g., Medical Center at Bowling Green v. NLRB, 712 F.2d 1091 (6th Cir.1983); Iowa Elec. Light and Power Co. v. NLRB, 717 F.2d 433 (8th Cir.1983); Methodist Home v. NLRB, 596 F.2d 1173 (4th Cir.1979); NLRB v. ......
  • St. Anthony Hosp. Systems, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 8, 1989
    ...votes, there was no need for the Board to address the issue any further in that case. See Medical Center at Bowling Green v. NLRB, 712 F.2d 1091, 1093 (6th Cir.1983) (approving of challenged vote procedure). Consequently, we Page 524 do not find the Board's order allowing the radiologic tec......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Dickerson-Chapman, Inc., DICKERSON-CHAPMA
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 1, 1992
    ...of a relatively small number of individuals whose votes may not affect the election." Medical Center at Bowling Green v. NLRB, 712 F.2d 1091, 1093 (6th Cir.1983). See also NLRB v. Klingler Elec. Corp., 656 F.2d 76 (5th Cir.1981) (court enforced order in case in which eight workers, whose su......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Clark Distributing Co., Inc., No. 90-5086
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • October 24, 1990
    ...were excluded from the unit did not significantly alter the character and scope of the unit. See Medical Center at Bowling Green v. NLRB, 712 F.2d 1091 (6th Cir.1983) (Court approved the Board's determination to permit 17 registered nurses classified as "unit directors" to case challenged b......
4 cases
  • Williamson Piggly Wiggly v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 86-5800
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • October 16, 1987
    ...is afforded broad discretion in determining whether an employee is a "supervisor." E.g., Medical Center at Bowling Green v. NLRB, 712 F.2d 1091 (6th Cir.1983); Iowa Elec. Light and Power Co. v. NLRB, 717 F.2d 433 (8th Cir.1983); Methodist Home v. NLRB, 596 F.2d 1173 (4th Cir.1979); NLRB v. ......
  • St. Anthony Hosp. Systems, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 8, 1989
    ...votes, there was no need for the Board to address the issue any further in that case. See Medical Center at Bowling Green v. NLRB, 712 F.2d 1091, 1093 (6th Cir.1983) (approving of challenged vote procedure). Consequently, we Page 524 do not find the Board's order allowing the radiologic tec......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Dickerson-Chapman, Inc., DICKERSON-CHAPMA
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 1, 1992
    ...of a relatively small number of individuals whose votes may not affect the election." Medical Center at Bowling Green v. NLRB, 712 F.2d 1091, 1093 (6th Cir.1983). See also NLRB v. Klingler Elec. Corp., 656 F.2d 76 (5th Cir.1981) (court enforced order in case in which eight workers, whose su......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Clark Distributing Co., Inc., No. 90-5086
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • October 24, 1990
    ...were excluded from the unit did not significantly alter the character and scope of the unit. See Medical Center at Bowling Green v. NLRB, 712 F.2d 1091 (6th Cir.1983) (Court approved the Board's determination to permit 17 registered nurses classified as "unit directors" to case challenged b......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT