03/25/2025: Region Orders Armour-Globe Election in Acute Care Hospital
Applying the Health Care Rule even though it does not technically apply.
The Queen's Medical Center, 20-RC-359891 (Regional Election Decision)
This case involves a petition filed by the Hawai'i Nurses' Association, OPEIU Local 50 (Petitioner) seeking to include Respiratory Therapists in an existing bargaining unit of Radiation Therapists at The Queen's Medical Center (QMC) in Honolulu, Hawai'i.
The Petitioner requested an Armour-Globe self-determination election to determine if Respiratory Therapists wish to join the existing technical unit of Radiation Therapists. The Employer opposed this, arguing that the Respiratory Therapists do not share a community of interest with Radiation Therapists and do not constitute an identifiable distinct group of employees.
The Regional Director analyzed whether the Respiratory Therapists constitute an appropriate voting group for a self-determination election. Key facts considered included:
Both groups require state licensure and minimum associate's degrees, though their certifying entities differ
Both are technical employees working at the same medical facility
The groups have different supervision, work different schedules, use different equipment, and rarely interact
Respiratory Therapists work throughout the facility while Radiation Therapists work exclusively in one department
Both groups access the Epic recordkeeping system but use it differently
There is no evidence of interchange between the classifications
Applying the Armour-Globe standard, the Regional Director determined that the Respiratory Therapists constitute an "identifiable, distinct segment" that could appropriately vote to join the existing technical unit. The Director emphasized that directing a self-determination election would not result in undue proliferation of bargaining units, which is disfavored in the healthcare context.
The Regional Director concluded that under the Board's Health Care Rule, technical employees at an acute care hospital share a presumptive community of interest with all other technical employees "by virtue of their education, training, and specialized skills." Therefore, the Respiratory Therapists share a community of interest with Radiation Therapists because both are technical employees.
The Regional Director directed a self-determination election among the Respiratory Therapists to determine whether they wish to join the existing technical unit represented by the Petitioner.
Significant Cases Cited
St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, 357 NLRB 854 (2011): Established that a self-determination election is appropriate for adding unrepresented employees to an existing unit if they share a community of interest and constitute an identifiable, distinct segment.
Crittenton Hospital, 328 NLRB 879 (1999): Recognized exceptions to the Board's eight appropriate units in acute-care hospitals when there are existing nonconforming units.
Warner-Lambert Co., 298 NLRB 993 (1990): Held that petitioned-for employees need not constitute a separate appropriate unit to be added to an existing unit.
Great Lakes Pipe Line Co., 92 NLRB 583 (1950): Established that a self-determination election may be appropriate regardless of whether the petitioned-for employees could be a separate appropriate unit.
Transit Group, Inc., and Challenger Transportation, Inc., as Successors, Alter Egos, and a Single Employer, 05-AC-353957 (Regional Election Decision)
In this case, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1777 (Local 1777) filed a petition seeking to amend a certification issued in 2018 that certified Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) as the collective-bargaining representative of employees at Challenger Transportation, Inc. (Challenger). Local 1777 sought to change the employer's name in the certification to "Transit Group, Inc., and Challenger Transportation, Inc., as successors, alter egos, and a single employer."
The Regional Director dismissed the petition for several reasons. First, the petition sought to substantially change the certification in multiple ways: (1) changing the certified representative from ATU to Local 1777, (2) changing the unit description to include classifications specifically excluded in the original certification, and (3) adding Transit Group as an employer. The Director found that an amendment of certification (AC) proceeding is not the appropriate vehicle for making these changes.
The Director explained that AC proceedings are primarily used for confirming changes in the name or affiliation of an employer or labor organization, not for imposing bargaining obligations on entities not previously recognized or certified. Additionally, when an AC petition presents a question concerning representation, it must be dismissed because an amendment of certification is not intended to change the representative itself.
The Director also noted that the issues raised by Local 1777 - allegations of single employer status, alter ego status, and evasion of bargaining obligations - would be more appropriately addressed through an unfair labor practice proceeding. In fact, Local 1777 had already filed an unfair labor practice charge (Case 05-CA-357053) covering the same allegations.
The Director distinguished cases cited by Local 1777 (Motor City Dodge and Miami Industrial Trucks), noting that those cases involved much narrower changes to certifications than what Local 1777 sought here. In those cases, the Board only substituted employer names or established successorship for the same employee classifications described in the original certifications.
The petition was dismissed, with the Director finding that processing it would not effectuate the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act. The Director determined that the unfair labor practice proceeding would be a more effective way to resolve the issues of single employer status, alter ego status, alleged failure to bargain, and transfer of bargaining unit work.
Significant Cases Cited
Motor City Dodge, Inc., 185 NLRB 629 (1970): Board found employer was successor to entity named in certification and granted AC petition to substitute successor's name.
Miami Indus. Trucks, Inc., 221 NLRB 1223 (1975): Board reversed Regional Director's finding of single employer status, finding instead a successor relationship for identical classifications.
General Box Co., 82 NLRB 678 (1949): Established rule that voluntarily-recognized unions may obtain additional benefits through Board certification achieved through Board-supervised election.
Uniroyal, Inc., 194 NLRB 268 (1972): AC petition must be dismissed if it presents a question concerning representation, as amendment is not intended to change the representative itself.
Missouri Beef Packers, 175 NLRB 1100 (1969): AC petition that clearly presents a question concerning representation must be dismissed even absent objections from parties.