Baker Places, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 86 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Baker Places, Inc. and Local 250, Hospital and Insti-
tutional Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 20-RC-12145
July 11, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Alan Fener.
After the hearing and pursuant to National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Regional Director for Region 20 issued
a Decision and Order dismissing the petition. Peti-
tioner filed a request for review, which was granted
by the Board, and a further hearing was held for the
limited purpose of taking testimony regarding the
impact on commerce of the Employer's business.
Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed
briefs.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is a nonprofit California corpo-
ration engaged in the operation of three halfway
houses I in the city and county of San Francisco es-
tablished to provide residential and rehabilitative
services to prepare mentally disturbed patients for
the transition from living in a mental institution to
independent living. The residents of the houses do
the cooking, cleaning, and chores around the houses
under the supervision of employees of the Employer.
The stay of a patient at any of the houses is limited;
at one of the houses the maximum stay is 30 days, at
the two others it is 9 months.
The primary service of the houses is residential.
They offer a temporary home to people. They do not
render psychotherapy services to clients and do not
have any professionals on the staff offering such
services. They do offer counseling in a more informal
sense, that is, helping the clients organize their daily
activities, helping them find a more permanent place
to live, and helping them in referrals for therapy, vo-
cational guidance, legal aid, etc.
The Employer's referral process requires that to be
accepted a patient must have his application filled
out by a therapist who has an office or operates in
San Francisco; generally patients are referred by a
local mental hospital. At Mandala House, one of the
three operated by the Employer, no patient is accept-
ed who lives outside the local mental health district.
At the other two houses, 90 percent or more of the
patients also reside in the mental health districts
where the houses are located; however, there is a
"loophole" which permits acceptance of a small
number of patients who may not have a local ad-
dress, but who have gone through the local mental
health system and have been referred by a local hos-
pital.
During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, the
Employer had gross receipts of about $225,000.
About 50 percent of this sum was received from the
Community Mental Health Districts of San Francis-
co which in turn received such money from the State
of California. Approximately 25 to 30 percent also
was received through the Community Health Dis-
tricts, but this is MIH staffing grant money that
came from the Federal Government to the State to
the county, to the city, to the district, and then to the
Employer. The remainder of the income was received
from patient contributions and private foundations.
During the 1974 fiscal year, the Employer made no
out-of-state purchases; it does not have any sales.
The Employer asserts that it is a charitable, non-
commercial enterprise whose activities are local in
nature and have little impact on interstate commerce.
Accordingly, it argues that the Board should refuse
to assert its jurisdiction in this case on the authority
of Ming Quong Children's Center, 219 NLRB 899
(1974) (Member Kennedy concurring in the result;
Member Fanning dissenting), where the Board de-
clined to assert jurisdiction over a nonprofit, charita-
ble corporation which operated a home for disturbed
children. Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that
the Ming Quong decision is no longer applicable in
view of the recent health care amendments to the
Act. It also urges that, in deciding upon a gross reve-
nue standard for asserting jurisdiction of health care
facilities like those of the Employer, the Board
should utilize the $100,000 gross annual revenue
standard previously established for nursing homes?
On July 26, 1974, the National Labor Relations
Act was amended so as to extend its coverage to
health care institutions which are defined as follows:'
(14) The term "health care institution" shall
include any hospital, convalescent hospital,
health maintenance organization, health clinic,
nursing home, extended care facility, or other in-
stitution devoted to the care of sick, infirm, or aged
person. [Emphasis supplied.]
Member Jenkins and Penello find that halfway
i The term halfway house is used to describe an institution which services 2 University Nursing Home, Inc, 168 NLRB 263 (1967).
individuals who are halfway along the path from mental hospital living ' Public Law 93-360, 93d Cong S3203, 88 Stat. 395
219 NLRB No. 16
BAKER PLACES , INC. 87
houses such as those operated by the Employer are
encompassed within the above definition of "health
care institution." Halfway houses are intended to be
part of the treatment pattern for mentally ill persons.
They are designed to facilitate the transition of men-
tally ill persons from state mental institutions to ordi-
nary living. In fact, their purpose is to substitute for
and make unnecessary prolonged confinement in
mental hospitals. To the extent that they are success-
ful in their endeavors, state mental hospitals may be
curtailed or closed entirely. In a real sense, although
it is not a hospital, the halfway house is a treatment
facility for the mentally sick. The statutory definition
of "health care institution" is very broad. It con-
cludes not only specific types of health care facilities,
but every "other institution devoted to the care of
sick, infirm, or aged persons.4 A halfway house is
devoted to the care of the mentally ill. The fact that
its purpose is rehabilitative does not make it any less
a "health care institution." Member Jenkins and Pe-
nello, however, would not assert jurisdiction over this
Employer because its total gross annual income is
less than $250,000. In East Oakland Community
Health Alliance, Inc., 218 NLRB No. 193 (1975), the
Board has decided that in the health care field, ex-
cept for nursing homes, visiting nurses associations,
and related facilities, it would not, in the exercise of
its discretion, assert jurisdiction of a health care insti-
tution as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act, unless
the employer's gross annual revenue amounted to at
least $250,000. Inasmuch as the Employer's annual
revenue for the 1974 fiscal year was less than that
sum, Members Jenkins and Penello would dismiss
the petition.
Chairman Murphy and Member Kennedy join
Members Jenkins and Penello in dismissing the peti-
tion. However, they have an additional reason for
4 See Beverly Farm Foundation, Incorporated, 218 NLRB No. 194 (1975)
(Chairman Murphy and Member Kennedy dissenting).
dismissing. The Chairman and Member Kennedy
would find that halfway houses are-not "health care
institutions" within the meaning of Section 2(14) of
the Act,' as they do not render psychotherapy or
other special health care services but essentially serve
as temporary, supportive residences. They would
therefore apply the doctrine of Ming Quong
Children's Center, 210 NLRB 899 (1974), and in the
exercise of the Board's discretion decline to assert
jurisdiction over "this type of nonprofit institution
whose activities are noncommercial in nature and are
intimately connected with the charitable purposes of
the institution."
Inasmuch as we would not assert jurisdiction over
this Employer, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER FANNING, concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
Although I agree with Members Jenkins and Pe-
nello that the "half-way houses" involved herein con-
stitute a health care facility, I do not share their view
that jurisdiction should not be asserted because the
Employer does not meet the Board's $250,000 stan-
dard 6
The record discloses that the gross annual volume
of the Employer is between $200,000 and $250,000,
and that 50 percent and approximately 30 percent of
the Employer's funds were derived from the State of
California and Federal agencies, respectively. In
view of the source of most of the Employer's funds
and for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in
East Oakland, I would apply the $100,000 standard
used for nursing homes and related facilities and as-
sert jurisdiction herein.
S Compare their dissenting opinion in Lutheran Association for Retarded
Children, et al, 218 NLRB No. 195 (1975)
6 See my dissent in East Oakland Community Health Alliance, supra.