UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,

v. No. 98-1053 HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES OF WEST VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Williamson Memorial Hospital, Respondent.
HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES OF WEST VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Williamson Memorial Hospital, Petitioner, No. 98-1106 v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. On Application for Enforcement and Cross-Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (9-CA-35293) Argued: January 28, 1999 Decided: March 11, 1999 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and GOODWIN, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________Enforcement granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Alex V. Barbour, BATES, MECKLER, BULGER & TILSON, Chicago, Illinois, for Health Management. Fred B. Jacob, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Board. ON BRIEF: Brian W. Bulger, Grett G. Rawitz, BATES, MECKLER, BULGER & TILSON, Chicago, Illinois, for Health Management. Frederick L. Feinstein, Acting General Counsel, Linda Sher, Associate General Counsel, John D. Burgoyne, Acting Deputy Associate General Counsel, Fred L. Cornnell, Supervisory Attorney, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Board.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) petitions forenforcement of a Board order finding that Health Management Associates of West Virginia, Inc., d/b/a Williamson Memorial Hospital (the Hospital) committed unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain with the United Mine Workers of America (the Union). The Hospital cross-petitions for review of that order. The petition for enforcement is granted.
I. The Hospital is an acute care facility with two off-site clinics. The current dispute began when the Hospital refused to agree to a union representation election for a proposed bargaining unit consisting of
2nonprofessional employees but not including business office clerical employees (BOCs). Following a hearing to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, the Regional Director concluded that the Hospital hadfailed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that would preclude application of the general Board rule that BOCs may constitute a separate bargaining unit in acute care hospitals. See 29 C.F.R.§ 103.30(a) (1998). The Regional Director therefore ordered an election among the employees of the proposed bargaining unit, and theBoard denied the Hospital's request for review of the Regional Director's decision. In the subsequent representation election, unit employees voted in favor of union representation. The Regional Directortherefore certified the Union as the unit employees' collectivebargaining representative. When the Hospital refused the Union's request to bargain, the Union filed a charge with the Board alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act. See29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1), (5) (West 1998). The Board's General Counsel issued a complaint based on thatcharge. In its answer, the Hospital admitted that it had refused to bargain but contested the appropriateness of the Board's unit determination. The General Counsel then transferred the pro ceedings to the Board, which granted summary judgment against the Hospital. The Board's order requires the Hospital, inter alia , to cease and desist refusing to bargain with the Union.
II.The Hospital argues that the Board abused its discretion in certifying the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit described. We disagree. The Board enjoys "the widest possible discretion" in selecting appropriate bargaining units. Arcadian Shores, Inc. v. NLRB , 580 F.2d 118, 119 (4th Cir. 1978). Here, we conclude that the Board was well within its discretion in determining that the Hospital failed to establish extraordinary circumstances that would have justified a departure from the general rule. Accordingly, we grant enforcement of the Board's order.
ENFORCEMENT GRANTED
3