Beverly Farm Foundation Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 401 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

BEVERLY FARM FOUNDATION
Beverly Farm Foundation Incorporated and Service
Employees Union , Local 50 , Affiliated with Service
Employees International Union ; AFL-CIO. Cases
14-CA-7893 and 14-RC-7687 '
December 9, 1974
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND
PENELLO
Pursuant to Sections 102.105 and 102.106 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the General Counsel has filed a petition for a declara-
tory order and a brief in support thereof to determine
whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over Bev-
erly Farm Foundation Incorporated, herein called the
Employer. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief in
response to the General Counsel's petition and brief.
In pertinent part, the General Counsel's petition and
supporting brief, and the Employer's response thereto
allege as follows:
1. There are presently pending before the Board an
unfair labor practice case, 14-CA-7893, and a re-
presentation proceeding, 14-RC-7687, both involving
the Employer herein.
2. The Employer is a not-for-profit corporation
chartered by the State of Illinois, which cares exclu-
sively for mentally retarded people at its facility located
in Godfrey, Illinois. It currently cares for 431 individu-
als at the 215-acre facility. Approximately one-half of
the individuals are from the State of Illinois. The corpo-
ration is owned by the parents and legal guardians of
the individuals who are cared for at the facility. A
majority of the individuals currently cared for by the
Employer have been in residence for more than 15
years and their ages range from 1 year to over 70 years
of age. There is no program at the facility designed to
prepare the individuals for eventual return to society.
There is instruction in some subjects, such as reading,
writing, and geography, the level of which might paral-
lel that given elementary school children through grade
8; however, it may take them many years to reach that
level. The individuals are also taught such activities as
painting, woodworking, and sewing. None of the teach-
ers at the facility are currently certified by the State.
The Employer cares for approximately 40 individuals
who require extra care due mainly to birth defects. The
Employer is licensed by the State of Illinois for approxi-
mately 400 "sheltered care" beds, and for approxi-
mately 40 "intermediate care" beds. The facility em-
ploys between 230 and 240 workers of whom 10 are
part-time employees, and of all the employees, only 1
is a professional registered nurse who works a 40-hour
401
week and is on call at other times. There are no licensed
practical nurses or any other employees who have spe-
cialized nurses training or education. A local doctor is
on call, if needed, and makes a visit to the facility once
a week on a "sick call" basis. A psychiatrist from the
area also visits the facility approximately once a month.
3. For the fiscal-year ending June 30, 1974, the
budget for the Employer's facility was $1,717,876, of
which approximately $1,102,000 was budgeted for sa-
laries. The Employer performs services valued in excess
of $500,000 for people located outside the State of Il-
linois . The parents or legal guardians of each individual
cared for by the Employer are assessed between $300
and $350 per individual per month. The Employer re-
ceives $7,232 Federal aid through the CHAMPUS pro-
gram. It does not receive any Federal money through
the Medicare program. During the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1974, the Employer received a total of $26,800
in private contributions. More than 90 percent of the
operating funds of the facility comes from the fees as-
sessed on the parents and legal guardians of the cared-
for individuals. The Employer annually purchases and
receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
suppliers located outside the State of Illinois.
4. There are no proceedings involving the same sub-
ject matter pending before any agency or court of a
State or territory.
5. Although served with a copy of the petition herein,
no response, as provided in the Board's Rules and
Regulations, has been received from the Union.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
a. The Employer operates a facility for the care of
mentally retarded individuals in Godfrey, Illinois.
b. The General Counsel argues that the Board should
assert jurisdiction over the Employer and, in doing so,
apply the $100,000 gross revenue standard which ap-
plies to nursing homes. Alternatively, the General
Counsel urges that should the Board decide that the
nursing home standard is not the appropriate jurisdic-
tional standard to be applied, then jurisdiction should
be asserted as the Employer meets the Board's basic
jurisdictional standards. The Employer, on the other
hand, contends that, under the facts of this case, the
facility involved herein cannot be precisely classified,
since it cannot be classified as a nursing home nor can
it be classified as a hospital, and, therefore, the petition
should be dismissed.
The facts' as above set forth indicate that neither our
hospital nor our nursing home standards have applica-
tion to this Employer.
The Employer's operations, it would appear, bear
some resemblance to those involved in Ming Quong
215 NLRB No. 73
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Children's Center, 210 NLRB No. 125 (1974); in that
case, a majority of the Board declined to assert jurisdic-
tion, for reasons set forth therein. However, since issu-
ance of the Ming Quong case, Public Law 93-360 has
been enacted, relating to the Board's jurisdiction in the
health care field. In order for the Board to decide
whether it would assert jurisdiction over this Em-
ployer, it would need to address itself to the impact of
the recent health care legislation on the Ming Quong
decision, and on the Board's jurisdictional standards as
they might apply to the specific operations of the Em-
ployer herein. The Board does not customarily make
policy decisions of this type in petitions for a declara-
tory order or in petitions for an advisory opinion;' nor
is it willing to do so here without the development of
a full and complete record.
It is hereby ordered that, for the reasons set forth
above, the Petition for Declaratory Order herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
i See, e g, Walker Butler, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Cook
County, ILL, et at, 138 NLRB 221 (1962), Port of Sacramento, 180 NLRB
529 (1969)