would appreciate if that would be included in the record, because we feel it is especially pertinent to the matters before this subcommittee. Mr. GIBBONS. Before I proceed, let me give you a brief background of the Hospital Association of Pennsylvania.

The statewide association consisting of about 300 member hospitals and related health-care institutions includes not only nonprofit hospitals but also public hospitals and in addition, private hospitals, private profit hospitals.

In addition, we represent perhaps 300 other individuals who are members of the association.

In Pennsylvania, the statistics which the prior witness stated, would seem to be approximately correct. We have about 150,000 employees in hospitals in the State of Pennsylvania, of which about 15,000 are in public hospitals and another 5,000 are in private hospitals. Now, in Pennsylvania, the experience that we have had with the private nonprofit-private profit hospitals under the Taft-Hartley amendment is very slight; the reason being that none of the profit hospitals in Pennsylvania are now organized under the National Labor Relations Act.

The important thing that I want to convey in my own presentation here and I will have to not read the transcript of what I have already presented is that Pennsylvania, about 2 years ago, was concerned with all the problems that have been presented here before this committee; they were concerned with the problems of organizational strikes not only among public employees, teachers, State employees, sanitation workers, but also among employees in the nonprofit hospitals.

As a result of this concern, a commission was formed; and this commission recommended legislation_which eventually was enacted, and that is the Pennsylvania Public Employees Act.

This act covers not only public employees, but also covers those employees in charitable institutions, including the nonprofit hospitals of Pennsylvania. Thus far, we have had approximately 40 petitions for elections in Pennsylvania for nonprofit hospitals, some of which have obviously gone in favor of the unions which weren't interested in organizing and some which have gone the other way.

The act which Pennsylvania now is operating under for nonprofit hospitals is tailored very closely after the National Labor Relations Act. But it differs in a few very salient points. And those are the points that I hope to emphasize.

First of all, it differs in the machinery which is established for resolving bargaining impasses. Before we get to the impasse stage, of course, we have to have a union which is organized and certified. And as I indicated earlier, the Pennsylvania act follows the National Labor Relations Act very closely as far as that is concerned.

Probably the most significant alteration is what we do in our act, partially due to-of bargaining units within a particular employer. But aside from that, the right to organize, to hold elections, to have the Board determine what constitutes an appropriate unit, and certify units as the sole representative of employees, is very similar to the National Labor Relations Act.

And so we solved the problem in Pennsylvania with regard to the organizational strike, the recognition strike, which has occurred throughout the country and were occurring in Pennsylvania.

But once this unit is certified, then we go a little further than the National Labor Relations Act because we feel that we are involved here with a product and a service which is somewhat different than the production of widgets and the loss of profit that might occur during a strike or bargaining impasse.

We therefore have a very elaborate impasse-resolving procedure in this act.

It begins with mediation. Mediation is required after a specific time of bargaining; it is followed by private factfinding and public factfinding. This factfinding is partially binding in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, according to the parties involved.

After factfinding is made public, then we do provide and Pennsylvania I think was the second State in the Nation to provide it—a limited right to strike among public employees and I believe Hawaii was the first by 2 months. The Pennsylvania law does allow a limited right to strike for public employees and employees of nonprofit hospitals, limited by whether or not the strike endangers or affects the public safety, health, or welfare.

Now, what does this mean as far as nonprofit hospitals are concerned?

Well, thus far, we have not had a strike in Pennsylvania involving nonprofit hospitals after approximately 2 years of operation under this act. This is not to say that there won't be a strike in the future.

We did have one strike that I am familiar with in a county nursing home which also came under this act. As a result of the provisions of this act, which provide for injunctive relief if safety, health, and welfare of the public is endangered, in the particular instance which I have cited, the county was able to go into court and get an injunction but, keep this in mind: An injunction does not have to bring a strike to a close; it can limit the amount of people who are on strike, or it can limit the effect of the strike.

In this particular situation, I am going to take some issue with some of the witnesses that preceded me in this particular situation. The union did not give the county any type of warning. It did not through any means of ambulance service or offer to supply minimal service. În this particular situation, the strike was called without warning, and very little, if any, service was provided. It was only because the Pennsylvania Public Employee Act did provide for a method of going into court and getting injunctive relief in a situation like that and that some relief was made available to this particular county nursing home. It is this type of a situation which we are concerned will occur with the National Labor Relations Act. There is no protection under the National Labor Relations Act if the union, which as was testified here before the committee indicated, are deeply concerned with the welfare of patients and making sure that the public is not adversely affected. If for some reason they are able to or are willing to go through with these good intentions, the hospital is more or less at the mercy of the particular union. It is for this reason that we do provide the injunctive relief where the public health, safety, and welfare is concerned in Pennsylvania.

I submit and I think it is very important to take note of the fact, and I am going to repeat myself that I don't think nonprofit hospitals, or any public body, should be put in the position of operating only if the good will and good intentions of the union are followed through. I think there has to be some procedure for protecting the public; and we have that procedure in the Pennsylvania Public Employee Act and I really submit that-and would hope-your subcommittee and the Senate and the Congress, would look at our experience in Pennsylvania, would see what we have done, and look at our strength in Pennsylvania. And if there is going to be legislation which covers nonprofit hospitals, that this legislation have the protections, contains all of the protections, that the Pennsylvania Public Employee Act contains.

That concludes my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

(The prepared statement and other information follows:)