STATE OF WASHINGTON BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
In the matter of the petition of:
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 381	CASE 9631-E-92-1586
Involving certain employees of:	DECISION 4187 - PECB
FORKS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL	ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Beverly Kincaid, Business Representative, appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Eric Jensen, Hospital Administrator, appeared on behalf of the employer.

On February 12, 1992, United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 381 (union), filed a petition with the Public Employment Relations Commission seeking investigation of a question concerning representation among certain employees of Forks Community Hospital (employer). A pre-hearing conference was conducted on March 18, 1992, at which time the parties disagreed over several issues affecting the scope of the proposed bargaining unit. A hearing was conducted on May 4, 1992, in Forks, Washington, before Hearing Officer Kenneth J. Latsch. During the course of the hearing, the parties stipulated to the inclusion or exclusion of some of the classifications previously at issue, and the hearing was limited to the remaining issues. The union submitted a post-hearing brief to complete the record in the matter.

BACKGROUND

Public Hospital District 1 of Clallam County (d/b/a Forks Community Hospital) offers a variety of health services in and around the western portion of Clallam County, Washington. The employer operates a hospital facility at Forks, Washington. In addition, the employer operates a clinic at Clallam Bay, Washington, approximately 25 miles from Forks, which is used primarily as an emergency treatment facility.[1] Both operations are under the policy direction of a board of directors, with daily supervision of activities left to Hospital Administrator Eric Jensen. Several assistant administrators who report to Jensen are responsible for departmental operations.

The employer has existing collective bargaining relationships with United Staff Nurses Union, concerning a bargaining unit of registered nurses, and with Service Employees International Union, Local 6, concerning a bargaining unit of licensed practical nurses. The record reflects that the remainder of the employer's workforce is not organized for purposes of collective bargaining.

The union has sought certification as exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit of approximately 3 5 non-supervisory employees, described in the petition as:

Business Office (Fiscal, Billing & Accounting)

Service Maint. (CNA, Housekeeping, Laundry Maint.)

Technical (Med Tech)

In response to a routine request by the Commission for a list of the employees involved, the employer provided 88 employee names on February 28, 1992, together with the names of 21 individuals that the employer proposed to have excluded from the unit as "professional", "supervisors" or "confidential" employees. A supplemental list, containing 10 additional names, was submitted by the employer on March 18, 1992, bringing the size of the bargaining unit claimed by the employer to a total of 98 employees. The breakdown of those employees was as follows:

 

 

Cateaories / titles	# Employees
Business office titles (e.g., admitting, reception, accounting)	13
Service and maintenance titles:
Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) Housekeeping[2]	14
	7
Laundry	1
Cooks and dietary aides	6
Maintenance	1
Technical (Med Tech)
Medical records & transcription	2
Other titles:
Case Manager	5
Substance Abuse Counselor	2
Activity Director	1
Central supply	2
Pharmacy aide	1
Community Support Aide	1
Laboratory aide	1
Scrub technician	1
Physical therapy aide	1
X-ray technician Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT)[3]	2
	37

The union took issue with several of the inclusions proposed by the employer. Additionally, the union disputed one of the exclusions proposed by the employer (i.e., the "payroll / accounts payable" clerk), increasing the total employees involved to 99.

During the course of the hearing, the parties indicated that they had stipulated to include the "case manager", "substance abuse counselor", "activity director", "central supply" and "pharmacy aide B" classes in the bargaining unit, thereby adding 11 employees to the unit originally sought by the union. Further, the parties indicated that they had agreed to exclude a "medical technologist"[4] and approximately seven or eight "per diem" CNA's from the bargaining unit. Thus, the bargaining unit appears to have grown to encompass as many as 47 eligible employees, and disputes remain as to as many as 44 individuals.[5]

DISCUSSION

While the parties have framed issues in this case as to specific classifications, all of those issues relate to the scope of the proposed bargaining unit. The union asserted initially that the appropriate bargaining unit encompassed approximately 3 5 employees. While some additions to that unit have been stipulated by the parties, the employer continues to assert that the only appropriate unit is somewhat larger than the unit sought by the union.

The Legislature has delegated authority to the Public Employment Relations Commission to determine appropriate bargaining units. RCW 41.56.060 specifies:

The commission, after hearing upon reasonable notice, shall decide in each application for certification as an exclusive bargaining representative, the unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. In determining, modifying, or combining the bargaining unit, the commission shall consider the duties, skills, and working conditions of the public employees; the history of collective bargaining by the public employees and their bargaining representatives; the extent of organization among the public employees; and the desire of the public employees. ...

The starting point for analysis is always the unit sought by the petitioning union. When requested by a petitioning union, bargaining units of a "horizontal" nature (i.e., grouping together all of the employees in a generic occupational type) have been found appropriate. Similarly, when requested by a petitioning union, units of a "vertical" nature (i.e., grouping employees into departmental or divisional units according to the employer's table of organization) have also been found appropriate.

... [T]he purpose [of unit determination] is to group together employees who have sufficient similarities (community of interest) to indicate that they will be able to bargain collectively with their employer. The statute does not require determination of the "most" appropriate bargaining unit. It is only necessary that the petitioned-for unit be an appropriate unit. Thus, the fact that there may be other groupings of employees which would also be appropriate, or even more appropriate, does not require setting aside a unit determination.

City of Winslow, Decision 3520-A (PECB, 1990).

There are situations, however, where the unit configuration sought by a petitioner must be rejected. For example, in City of Vancouver. Decision 3160 (PECB, 1989) the proposed bargaining unit would have had the effect of "stranding" employees in one or more units too small for them to ever implement their statutory bargaining rights, and so was deemed inappropriate. When confronted with an inappropriate unit that cannot be rehabilitated by a minor adjustment, or where a petitioning union indicates that it does not desire to represent employees who would necessarily be included in an appropriate unit, the Commission must dismiss the representation petition.

A ruling on the scope of the appropriate bargaining unit is necessary in this case as a condition precedent to determining the claimed question concerning representation. This case is thus distinguished from the situation which existed in City of Redmond, Decision 1367-A (PECB, 1982), where the scope of the appropriate bargaining unit was stipulated and only a small number of "eligibility" issues needed to be reserved for rulings made after the determination of the question concerning representation.[6]

The Emergency Medical Technicians

Emergency medical services are provided in the Forks, Washington, area by the Ray Ellis Memorial Volunteer Ambulance Corps, and are provided in the Clallam Bay, Washington, area by the Clallam Bay Ambulance Corps. Those two organizations are separate from one another, and are each made up of members of the public who have received Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) training.

When an emergency call is received, members of the appropriate ambulance corps respond to either the hospital or to the clinic, to retrieve an ambulance. They then proceed to the scene of the emergency and perform emergency medical treatment, as needed. Victims are transported to Forks Community Hospital for treatment, when medically indicated. On occasions where multiple victims are at the hospital at the same time, EMT personnel may be asked to stay with the case during trauma procedures at the hospital, to supplement the physician and regular staff available in the hospital emergency room.

The employer maintains that the hospital directs the general EMT activities, that the EMT activities are part of the hospital's overall operations, and that the EMT personnel must be included in the proposed bargaining unit. On the other hand, the union contends that the EMT personnel are part of volunteer ambulance organizations with their own officers, that they are not employees of the hospital, that they receive markedly different wages and benefits from the hospital staff, and that they should be excluded from the proposed bargaining unit.

A substantial question arises here as to whether the members of the two ambulance corps are "employees" of this employer. Collective bargaining is a process for communications between employers and their employees. To be eligible to assert the rights of the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act, Chapter 41.56 RCW, an individual must be an employee of a public employer covered by that statute. RCW 41.56.030(2) . The classes of public entities covered by Chapter 41.56 RCW are delineated in RCW 41.56.020, as follows:

This chapter shall apply to any county or municipal corporation, or any political subdivision of the state of Washington except as otherwise provided by RCW 54.04.170, 54.04-.180, and chapters 41.59, 47.64, and 53.18 RCW. The Washington state patrol shall be considered a public employer of state patrol officers appointed under RCW 43.43.020.

There can be no doubt that Public Hospital District 1 of Clallam County is a municipal corporation within the broad coverage of Chapter 41.56 RCW. See, Roza Irrigation District v. State. 80 Wn.2d 633 (1972). The same cannot be said, however, for what appears to be two voluntary private organizations. Further, a "right of control" test is used in evaluating the existence of employment relationships. Tacoma School District. Decision 3314-A (PECB, 1990). To be deemed an employer of particular employees within the jurisdiction of the Commission, a public entity must have sufficient control over those employees to engage in meaningful and effective collective bargaining.

Recruitment and Hiring of Ambulance Corps Members -

Nothing in the record suggests that Forks Community Hospital has any role in the recruitment or selection of the EMT personnel associated with the ambulance corps. To the contrary, the testimony of one employer official indicated that the hospital expects the EMT personnel to have been fully trained and certified before commencing activity with the ambulance corps. It is inferred that this most basic of "employer" functions is left to the officers of the respective ambulance corps organizations.

Wages of Ambulance Corps Members -

Ambulance corps members are paid by Forks Community Hospital, but the amounts involved are nominal in comparison to the wages paid to other employees of this employer. An EMT is paid $2.50 per shift for periods spent on "standby". During the 40 or so occasions per month when an actual emergency response is made, the EMT personnel are paid at a rate of $5.24 per hour. The $5.24 per hour rate is also used on the limited occasions when an EMT works as part of the trauma team at the hospital. This compensation system is apparently unlike that used for any other employees of this employer.

The hospital makes payments towards workers compensation coverage for the members of the two ambulance corps, and the EMT personnel are eligible to participate in a "deferred compensation" program apparently offered by this employer in lieu of social security coverage.[7] The EMT personnel do not receive any other benefits from the hospital.

Hours of Ambulance Corps Members -

The EMT personnel who are on standby wear pagers, and respond to emergency calls from their residences or places of employment. A community of interests can be found where individuals perform the same type of generic work under common supervision in a central work location. See: Pierce County. Decision 2321 (PECB, 1985); and City of Redmond. Decision 2324 (PECB, 1985). Here, the ambulance corps members provide EMT coverage on a 24-hour basis, but they do not have regularly scheduled hours of work on the employer's premises. The only occasion for them to perform the same type of work as other hospital employees occurs on the occasions where an EMT stays with a case during treatment of a victim at the hospital emergency room. Even then, however, the testimony of an employer official indicates there is a marked difference of "level" between the training and skills of its registered nurses and those of the EMT personnel.

Even if the EMT personnel were to be deemed "employees" of this employer, a "community of interest" finding also requires that the affected individuals work sufficient hours to demonstrate that they have an expectation of continued employment with the employer. Town of Granite Falls. Decision 2617 (PECB, 1987).[8] Here, the record indicates that the members of the Ray Ellis Ambulance Corps rotate responsibility for 12-hour standby shifts, with three members available during any given shift period, and only six members on standby on a particular 24-hour period. They need only sign up for a minimum of four shifts per month to retain their active duty status. The Clallam Bay Ambulance Corps provides coverage with a single, three-member crew. It is inferred that this employer has very little actual control over the schedules of the EMT personnel, beyond making calls to recruit volunteers if the signups conducted by the ambulance corps organizations leave gaps on the schedule.

Working Conditions of Ambulance Corps Members -

The hospital purchases the ambulance vehicles and provides the minimum supplies and equipment required by state law. The two ambulance corps organizations engage in fundraising activities for other equipment and supply purchases.

The ambulance corps members must meet state qualifications to retain their EMT certifications, but the record indicates that the costs for EMT certification training are borne by the ambulance corps or by the State of Washington, rather than by the hospital. The employer does not pay the EMT personnel for time spent obtaining or retaining their EMT certifications.

The employer has a part-time "ambulance liaison" employee who coordinates ambulance corps activities. The liaison person is part of the hospital's administrative staff, and works out of an office in the hospital. The liaison person checks on accreditation, equipment upkeep, notifies individuals of available classes, and generally monitors the ambulance corps' operations. The record indicates that the liaison person does not directly supervise the work activities of the ambulance corps members, or take personnel action against them. Instead, officers within the two ambulance corps organizations supervise such activities.

Conclusions Regarding "Employee" Status -

Given the facts presented, the emergency medical technicians are appropriately likened to volunteer fire fighters traditionally associated with cities and fire districts, and are not public employees eligible for inclusion in a bargaining unit under Chapter 41.56 RCW. They have an organizational structure and supervision separate from the hospital. They respond directly from the community, do not work any set schedule of hours, and do not serve as part of the hospital's regular workforce. While the hospital expects the EMT personnel to take part in the rotation of standby duty, the individuals are not compelled to participate, and may withdraw from service at any time. The differences of compensation and benefits provided to the EMT personnel indicates that the hospital treats them as an adjunct to normal operations, rather than an integral part of daily services. Together, these factors show that the volunteer ambulance corps members neither qualify as "public employees" under RCW 41.56.030(2), nor share a community of interests with the hospital's employees, under RCW 41.56.060. The emergency medical technicians are not eligible for participation in the collective bargaining process.

Payroll / Accounts Payable Clerk

The position of "payroll clerk" is found in the employer's finance division. The clerk reports to Accounting Manager Audrey Grafstrom who, in turn, reports to Assistant Administrator for Finance David Pratt. Pratt reports directly to Hospital Administrator Jensen. The employer formerly had separate "payroll clerk" and "accounts payable clerk" positions, with each position filled by a full-time employee. In January, 1992, those positions were combined as the result of a reorganization in the finance division, and the payroll clerk is now responsible for both activities. The payroll duties take approximately 50% of the incumbent's time, and the remaining time is spent performing accounts payable duties.

The incumbent is responsible for maintaining payroll records on the employer's computer system, and also deals with a variety of personnel-related matters. The clerk processes "personnel action request forms" used when an individual is hired, discharged or receives a change in pay. The clerk routinely processes time cards, and deals with specialty pay issues that may arise. The payroll clerk also prepares payroll reports and other specific information when requested by the hospital administration. The payroll clerk also monitors tuition reimbursement payments that may be necessary for hospital employees.

The record indicates that the incumbent payroll clerk recently took over the position, and that it was formerly held by her immediate supervisor, Grafstrom. The incumbent has not participated directly in collective bargaining negotiations on behalf of the employer. The payroll position may be called upon to prepare reports concerning on-call hours and other matters brought up in collective bargaining negotiations.

The employer contends that the payroll clerk should not be included in the proposed bargaining unit, because of her regular contact with sensitive information concerning the hospital's payroll practices. The union contends that the payroll clerk should be included in the proposed bargaining unit, and that the position does not perform "confidential" duties within the meaning of established labor relations precedent. The union maintains that the clerk only provides information upon request and does not take any active part in the employer's labor relations policy formulation or collective bargaining strategy preparation.

RCW 41.56.030(2) defines "public employee", and sets forth the exclusion of "confidential" employees:

"Public employee" means any employee of a public employer except any person (a) elected by popular vote, or (b) appointed to office pursuant to statute, ordinance or resolution for a specified term of office by the executive head or body of the public employer, or (c) whose duties as deputy, administrative assistant or secretary necessarily imply a confidential relationship to the executive head or body of the applicable bargaining unit . . . [Emphasis supplied.]

The Supreme Court of the State of Washington has adopted a "labor nexus" test for determining claims of "confidential" status. In International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 469 v. City of Yakima, 91 Wn.2d 101 (1978), the Court held that the confidential relationship:

... arrives when continuous trust is reposed by one person in the skills or integrity of another. An employee who stands in such a relationship to an employer must act for the benefit of the employer.

When the phrase confidential relationship is used in the collective bargaining act, we believe it is clear that the legislature was concerned with an employee's potential misuse of confidential employer labor relations policy and a conflict of interest.

We hold that in order for an employee to come within the exception of RCW 41.56.030 (2), the duties which imply the confidential relationship must flow from an official intimate fiduciary relationship with the exclusive head of the bargaining unit or public official. ... The nature of this close association must concern the official and policy responsibilities of the public office or executive head of the bargaining unit, including formulation of labor relations policy. General supervisory responsibility is insufficient to place an employee within the exclusion.

The party proposing exclusion of an employee as confidential has a heavy burden of proof in establishing the required "labor nexus". See: City of Seattle. Decision 689-A (PECB, 1979).

In the instant case, the employer has failed to prove that the payroll clerk is a "confidential" employee. The payroll clerk has not participated in any collective bargaining activities on behalf of the employer, and her job duties indicate that such participation is unlikely in the future. The primary duty of the payroll position is the payment of wages under previously established salary schedules or labor contracts. At best, the clerk compiles information for the employer. The payroll clerk is not engaged in any meaningful discussion of labor policy formulation or implementation, and it appears that any sensitive computations could be made by the former incumbent of the position, who now supervises the disputed individual.

Physical Therapy Assistant

This individual does not hold a physical therapy license, and works under the clinical direction of a registered physical therapist who serves in a consulting capacity.[9] The record indicates that the incumbent in the disputed position, who suffers from several physical handicaps and receives assistance from a volunteer, makes assignments and otherwise directs the work of a physical therapy aide. The physical therapy assistant evaluates the aide's work performance, but has not participated in any hiring procedures or taken other personnel actions concerning the physical therapy aide.

The union contends that the physical therapy assistant is a "supervisor" who should be excluded from the bargaining unit. The employer would have the position included in the bargaining unit.

Chapter 41.56 RCW neither defines the term "supervisor", nor excludes supervisors from collective bargaining rights. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) v. Department of Labor and Industries, 88 Wn.2d 925 (1977). The Commission has, however, exercised its unit determination authority to exclude supervisors from the bargaining units composed of their subordinates, in order to reduce or avoid potential conflicts of interest that would otherwise occur within the bargaining unit. City of Richland. Decision 279-A (PECB, 1978), affirmed 29 Wn.App. 599 (Division III, 1981), review denied 96 Wn.2d 1004 (1981). Supervisory status does not depend on a job title. Rather, the disputed position must possess independent authority to take or effectively recommend personnel actions such as hiring, firing and grievance adjustment. See: Morton General Hospital, Decision 3521-B (PECB, 1991).

In this case, the physical therapy assistant does not meet the Commission's accepted criteria for supervisory exclusion. The individual can make work assignments to one subordinate, but that can be typical of a "lead worker" position within the bargaining unit. The employer has not demonstrated that the disputed individual could take any meaningful action concerning more critical personnel actions, such as hiring, discipline, discharge or adjustment of contractual grievances. Moreover, the employer has not proven that the disputed individual could recommend such actions with expectancy that those recommendations would be followed. The physical therapy assistant would properly be included in an otherwise appropriate rank-and-file bargaining unit.

Other Technical Positions

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has processed representation cases involving private sector hospitals since enactment of the "health care" amendments to the National Labor Relations Act in 1974. In that regard, the NLRB has used its rule-making powers to set forth the structure of bargaining units that it will consider to be appropriate in private acute care hospitals, generally limiting organizational efforts to eight units as follows:

Physicians

Registered Nurses

Other Professionals

Technical Employees

Service and Maintenance Employees

Clerical Employees

Skilled Maintenance Employees

Guards

The Public Employment Relations Commission considers the rules, practices and precedents of the NLRB in its administration of state collective bargaining laws, but is not required to follow the federal law in making bargaining unit determinations under RCW 41.56.060.[10]

The employer in this case operates an acute care hospital, albeit of somewhat smaller size than many of the institutions covered by the NLRB's unit determination rules. In attempting to commingle clerical employees, service/maintenance employees and at least some technical employees,[11] the unit sought by the petitioner in this case cuts across the fourth, fifth, and sixth of the units set forth by the NLRB.[12] The employer would have the petitioned-for unit expanded to include the balance of the employer's "technical" employees, while the union indicates it does not desire to represent those additional employees.

Scrub Tech -

The "scrub tech" works in the hospital's surgery department. Only about 30% of the incumbent's work time is spent as the "scrub tech", however, and the balance of the incumbent's work time is as a licensed practical nurse in the bargaining unit represented by SEIU Local 6. The record indicates that the incumbent receives different pay rates for "scrub tech" work and for her LPN work. SEIU Local 6 apparently does not claim jurisdiction over the "scrub tech" work.[13]

The union's reliance on the work performed by the incumbent "scrub tech" in the LPN unit is misplaced. The letter of agreement between the employer and the SEIU appears to relate to only one aspect of the employment relationship. It is entirely possible for an individual to be a "dual status" employee, with employment relationships in two or more bargaining units. See the discussion of an "English department aide" in Lonqview School District, Decision 2551-A (PECB, 1987), together with the disposition of another "dual status" situation in Lonqview School District, Decision 3109 (PECB, 1989) . So far as it appears from this record, qualification as an LPN is not a pre-requisite to work as a "scrub tech", and the two functions could be separated in the future. While licensed practical nurses are included in the "technical" unit under the NLRB's unit scheme, the existing LPN unit does not purport to encompass all "technical" employees of this employer. The "scrub tech" position would be improperly stranded unless included in a bargaining unit with other technical employees.

X-Ray Technicians -

Two x-ray technicians operate the hospital's x-ray equipment and perform routine maintenance to insure the normal operation of that equipment. The x-ray technicians work the same days, but have work hours which only partially overlap. The technicians rotate "on-call" duties. Both technicians must maintain state certification in x-ray procedures. The technicians report to the "laboratory / x-ray supervisor" who, in turn, reports to the "director of professional support services".

There is no claim that either of the "x-ray technician" employees is a supervisor, or that they should be excluded from the unit on some other basis. As with the "scrub tech" position, the "x-ray technician" classification would be improperly stranded unless included in a bargaining unit with other technical employees.

Conclusions Regarding "Technical" Classes -

Faced with a workforce that was already partially organized, and with a statutory obligation to respect the "history of bargaining" in those other units, creation of a "residual" unit emerges as a legitimate possibility, or even as a necessity. In City of Vancouver, supra, the petitioning unit did not categorically oppose the inclusion of certain employees in a newly created unit, and they were included in that unit to prevent their being "stranded", as follows:

Within the Public Works Department, the employer points to the code enforcement officer and zoning administrator. ... The employer's position on this issue appears to be well-taken. If a unit were to be created in this case which was limited to the employees in the building inspector I, II, and III classes, the zoning administrator and code enforcement officer would be left stranded or, because they are public employees who have a right to organize for the purposes of collective bargaining, could later form yet another bargaining unit. One small unit dictated by historical considerations can be justified against a "fragmentation" argument, but two such units cannot. The zoning administrator and code enforcement officer will, as urged by the employer, be included in the bargaining unit and will be eligible voters in the election directed herein.

In the case at hand, the union steadfastly refuses to consider some of the employer's "technical" employees as part of the proposed bargaining unit. Having already cut across the unit lines identified by the NLRB in its rules, the union's reliance here on the NLRB's formula is not persuasive as a basis for justifying bargaining unit exclusions that seemingly can only be justified as "extent of organization". See: Bremerton School District. Decision 527 (PECB, 1978).

Apart from deviation from the NLRB's formula, the nature and size of the employer's operation must be considered when making a unit determination under RCW 41.56.060. In general terms, the unit proposed by the union would include a variety of employees who share the same general working conditions, and perform duties in support of the hospital's medical treatment activities. Bargaining units of various non-certificated employees working in support of the primary educational functions of school districts are common under Chapter 41.56 RCW. See: Yelm School District, Decision 704-A (PECB, 1979). It would not be appropriate to "strand" employees, however, and it would not be in the best interests of sound labor relations to create a potential for yet another bargaining unit in this relatively small workforce.

The union's resistance to expanding its proposed clerical/service/ maintenance/technical unit to include the remaining technical employees leaves no alternative except to dismiss the petition. That will be the result here, unless the union moves within 10 days following the date of this order, to rehabilitate its proposed bargaining unit. See: Port of Seattle. Decision 890 (PECB, 1980).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.         Public Hospital District 1 of Clallam County, doing business as Forks Community Hospital, is a "public employer" within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(1).

2.         United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 381, a "bargaining representative" within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(3), has filed a petition for investigation of a question concerning representation, seeking certification as exclusive bargaining representative of a mixed unit of clerical, service and maintenance, and technical employees of Forks Community Hospital.

3.         At the time of hearing in the instant petition, Forks Community Hospital had existing collective bargaining relationships with the United Staff Nurses Union, concerning a bargaining unit of registered nurses, and with Service Employees International Union, Local 6, concerning a bargaining unit of licensed practical nurses. The remainder of the hospital's workforce was not represented for purposes of collective bargaining.

4.         The Ray Ellis Memorial Volunteer Ambulance Corps provides emergency medical technician services in the area surrounding Forks, Washington.

5.         The Clallam Bay Ambulance Corps provides emergency medical technician services in the area surrounding Clallam Bay, Washington.

6.         Both of the ambulance corps organizations identified in paragraphs 4 and 5 of these findings of fact provide services through community volunteers who rotate "standby" responsibilities among themselves, and who respond from their work locations or private residences, when needed. Those volunteers undergo training for certification as "emergency medical technician" (EMT) prior to commencing their activities as members of the ambulance corps organization. EMT volunteers are not required to be available for assignment, except for a minimal four shifts per month to maintain their participation in the ambulance corps organization.

7.         The EMT volunteers receive nominal compensation from the hospital for their services. The EMT volunteers receive workers compensation coverage by the hospital, but do not receive other benefits provided to hospital employees.

8.         The EMT volunteers are supervised by officers of the ambulance corps organizations. The hospital employs an "ambulance liaison", but that individual does not have authority to hire, fire or otherwise direct the ambulance corps members' work.

9.         The payroll clerk performs a number of duties related to routine preparation of the employer's payroll, as well as performing accounts payable functions. The individual is under the direct supervision of the former payroll clerk and under the indirect supervision of two other officials within the employer's finance department. The payroll clerk has never participated in the hospital's labor relations policy formulation or implementation.

10.       The employee classified as the "physical therapy assistant" works under the direction of a licensed physical therapist. The incumbent evaluates, and can make routine work assignments to, a physical therapy aide, but does not possess independent authority to take or make effective recommendations concerning other personnel actions affecting the aide.

11.       The bargaining unit claimed appropriate by the union, as modified by agreements made by the parties during the course of these proceedings, does not include certain employees who hold "technical" positions and perform various duties in support of the employer's primary health care functions. The "scrub tech" position is held by a "dual status" employee who is also employed as a licensed practical nurse in the bargaining unit represented by SEIU Local 6, but the wages, hours and working conditions of the "scrub tech" position are not within the work jurisdiction of Local 6. The "x-ray technician" employees perform health care support functions as non-supervisory employees of the employer.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.         The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Chapter 41.56 RCW.

2.         Members of the Ray Ellis Memorial Ambulance Corps and members of the Clallam Bay Ambulance Corps are volunteers, and are not public employees within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(2) for the purpose of collective bargaining with Forks Community Hospital.

3.         The "payroll / accounts payable clerk" is not "confidential" within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(2)(c), and would properly be included in an appropriate bargaining unit which includes office-clerical employees of Forks Community Hospital.

4.         The "physical therapy assistant" is not a supervisor whose duties or responsibilities create a potential for conflicts of interest, or warrant the exclusion of that position from a bargaining unit of non-supervisory employees under RCW 41.56.060.

5.         As petitioned for and as modified by agreements made by the parties during the course of these proceedings, the bargaining unit sought by the union in this proceeding is not an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining under RCW 41.56.060, by reason of its exclusion of some otherwise eligible technical employees of the employer.

ORDER

1.         United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 381, shall have 10 days following the date of this Order in which to notify the Executive Director of the Public Employment Relations Commission, in writing, that it desires to amend its proposed bargaining unit in this matter, in a manner consistent with this decision. In the event that the union files and serves such an amendment, further proceedings will be conducted in this case under Chapter 391-25 WAC.

2.         In the event that Local 381 fails to request further proceedings under paragraph 1 of this Order, the petition for investigation of a question concerning representation filed in this matter shall be deemed to be dismissed as seeking an inappropriate bargaining unit.

Entered at Olympia, Washington, on the 9th day of October, 1992.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARVIN L. SCHURKE, Executive Director

This order may be appealed by filing a petition for review with the Commission pursuant to WAC 391-25-390(2).