08/25/2025: Two Self-Determination Election Petitions Reaching Opposite Outcomes
When does a group of workers share a community of interest with an existing unit?
St. Charles Health System, Inc., D/B/a St. Charles Medical Center, 19-RC-367243 (Regional Election Decision)
This NLRB decision addresses a petition by the Oregon Nurses Association to add Patient Logistics Registered Nurses (PLRNs) to an existing bargaining unit of registered nurses at St. Charles Medical Center in Bend, Oregon through an Armour-Globe self-determination election.
The employer objected on three grounds: (1) the existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) bars inclusion because it excludes nurses not engaged in direct patient services, (2) the PLRNs are statutory supervisors, and (3) the PLRNs lack a community of interest with the existing unit.
The Regional Director rejected all three arguments:
Contract Bar: The Director found that an existing exclusion in a CBA does not bar a petition for a self-determination election.
Supervisory Status: The employer failed to establish that PLRNs are supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act. Though PLRNs use "nursing judgment" to direct patients to appropriate departments, this does not constitute assigning work to employees with independent judgment as defined in Oakwood Healthcare.
Community of Interest: Analyzing seven factors, the Director found that five supported including PLRNs in the existing unit:
Skills and Training: Both groups are registered nurses with similar required certifications
Functional Integration: PLRNs' work directing patients is integral to patient care
Contact: PLRNs have frequent communication with bargaining unit charge nurses
Interchange: Some bargaining unit nurses serve as temporary PLRNs
Terms and Conditions: Similar benefits, pay rates, and shift structures
The factors weighing against inclusion were:
Departmental Organization: Different day-to-day supervision
Job Functions: PLRNs work in an office setting rather than providing direct patient care
Based on this analysis, the Director concluded the PLRNs share a community of interest with the existing unit nurses and directed an election to be held on September 18, 2025.
Significant Cases Cited
Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006): Defined "independent judgment" for supervisory status and clarified that to assign work under the Act refers to designating significant overall duties, not giving ad hoc instructions.
UMass Memorial Medical Center, 349 NLRB 369 (2007): Established that an existing exclusion in a CBA does not bar a petition for a self-determination election.
Golden Crest Healthcare Center, 348 NLRB 727 (2006): Held that supervisory status cannot be established by paper authority alone; actual practice must be shown.
United Operations, Inc., 338 NLRB 123 (2002): Outlined the community of interest factors for determining appropriate bargaining units.
Croft Metals, Inc., 348 NLRB 717 (2006): Established that the burden of proving supervisory status rests with the party asserting that status.
California Faculty Association (CFA), 20-RC-369408 (Regional Election Decision)
The NLRB Regional Director issued a decision on August 19, 2025, regarding a petition filed by California Higher Education Staff Union (CHESU) seeking an Armour-Globe self-determination election for office managers at California Faculty Association (CFA). The key issue was whether these office managers share a sufficient community of interest with the existing bargaining unit of professional and support staff to warrant inclusion through a self-determination election.
CFA is a labor organization representing faculty at 23 California State University campuses. The existing bargaining unit includes professional staff (field representatives, legislative directors, etc.) and support staff, but excludes office managers, who work at individual chapter offices.
The Regional Director analyzed several community of interest factors:
Organization/Departmental Lines: Office managers are not included in any department on CFA's organizational chart, unlike unit employees who work in various departments.
Interchange: There was minimal evidence of interchange, with only one instance of an office manager temporarily transferring to a field representative role.
Frequency of Contact: Office managers have frequent contact with field representatives, which favored finding a community of interest.
Functional Integration: Office managers and field representatives collaborate on campaigns and member services, indicating functional integration.
Skills and Functions: Office managers perform primarily administrative duties, while field representatives handle representation matters, showing distinct functions.
Supervision: Office managers are supervised by chapter executive boards and field representatives, while unit employees report to department directors, indicating no common supervision.
Terms and Conditions: Office managers work part-time for hourly wages with minimal benefits, while unit employees are full-time salaried with comprehensive benefits.
Based on this analysis, the Regional Director concluded that office managers do not share a community of interest with the existing unit. Instead of directing an Armour-Globe election, the Director found that office managers constitute a separate appropriate unit and directed a mail-ballot election to determine whether they wish to be represented by CHESU in a standalone unit.
Significant Cases Cited
Warner-Lambert Co., 298 NLRB 993 (1990): Established standards for determining when a self-determination election is appropriate for adding unrepresented employees to an existing unit.
United Operations, Inc., 338 NLRB 123 (2002): Enumerated the factors for determining community of interest among employees.
Globe Machine and Stamping Co., 3 NLRB 294 (1937): Original case establishing the self-determination election process.
Armour and Company, 40 NLRB 1333 (1942): Refined the standards for self-determination elections, establishing the "Armour-Globe" doctrine.
Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc., 344 NLRB 1270 (2005): Held that differences in terms and conditions resulting from collective bargaining receive less weight in community of interest analysis.