Catholic Community Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 1, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 743 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES
Catholic Community Services' and District 1199-J
National Union of Hospital and Health Care
Employees, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
22-RC-7941
February 1, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND TRUESDALE
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Celeste Mattina.
Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, and by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 22, this case was transferred to the
National Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereaf-
ter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, including
the briefs, the Board finds:
1. Catholic Community Services is a nonprofit
corporation, organized under the laws of the State of
New Jersey, with its principal office located at One
Sumner Avenue, Newark, New Jersey. It is engaged in
the business of providing health, social, and related
services such as mental health clinics, adoption
programs, drug detoxification, and services for the
aging, handicapped, and recent immigrants. During a
recent 12-month period, Catholic Community Services
realized revenues in excess of $1 million and per-
formed services valued in excess of $50,000 in States
other than New Jersey. During this period it received
revenues from the Federal Government in excess of
$50,000.
The Employer contends that the Board's exercise of
jurisdiction in this matter would be violative of the
freedom of religion clause of the first amendment of
the United States Constitution, and that Congress did
not intend that the Board assert jurisdiction. We do
not agree.
The record establishes that the purpose of the
organization is not promulgation of the Roman
Catholic faith but the provision of social services on a
nondenominational basis. The Employer is operated
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
by a board of trustees rather than directly by the
Archdiocese of Newark. Employees are not required
to have any particular religious background or train-
ing. While the work of Catholic Community Services
is in accord with the charitable aims and purposes of
the Archdiocese, the Employer is not a religious
institution with a sectarian philosophy or mission. The
Employer has failed to prove that our assertion of
jurisdiction in this matter would raise any first
amendment questions. On the basis of the entire
record, we find that it would effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Lighthousefor the
Blind, 244 NLRB 1144 (1979); Roman Catholic
Diocese of Brooklyn, et al., 243 NLRB 49 (1979); J.
Arthur Trudeau Center, 227 NLRB 1439 (1977); St.
Aloysius Home, 224 NLRB 1344 (1976); cf. N.L.R.B.
v. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490
(1979).
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization seeking to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of the employees of the Employ-
er within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all psychologists,
social workers, mental health workers, rehabilitation
counselors, recreation specialists, residence counsel-
ors, clericals, psychiatrists, registered nurses, and art
therapists at the following locations: (1) 17 Mulberry
Street, Newark, New Jersey, in the mental health,
drug detoxification, and drug abuse programs; (2) the
transitional care programs at 235 Grafton Avenue,
596 Fourth Street, and 294 Prospect Avenue, all in
Newark, New Jersey; (3) the mental health program at
249 Virginia Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey; (4) 280
Main Street, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; (5) the
mental health program at 108 Alden Street, Cranford,
New Jersey; and (6) 3201 Central Avenue, Union
City, New Jersey; excluding all employees at other
locations and employees in other classifications, i.e.,
fee counselors, cashiers, switchboard operators, di-
etary, housekeeping, maintenance, guards, supervi-
sors, managerial employees, and members of religious
orders. The unit requested comprises about one-third
of the Employer's total work force.
Neither the Petitioner nor the Employer has speci-
fied an alternate unit. The Employer contends only
that the petitioned-for unit is not appropriate. The
Petitioner has indicated that, if the Board finds the
above-described unit inappropriate, the Petitioner
would not state whether it would be willing to go to an
election in another unit until such unit is specified.
The Employer's operation is organized into five
divisions, four of which are geographically defined and
247 NLRB No. 103
743
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
coincide with the operations in each of the four
counties in which the Employer's facilities are located.
The unit sought includes some employees in each
division, but does not include all the facilities or all the
employees in any one division. Each division includes
a variety of facilities in each respective county. The
Petitioner is requesting that employees from some of
the facilities be included; some facilities are completely
excluded from the unit sought. Furthermore, not all
employees at each specified facility are included in the
requested unit. In addition, the Petitioner seeks to
include some, but not all, employees in the specified
job classifications. Compensation levels, duties, train-
ing, hours, and working conditions diverge widely
among the members of the proposed unit. There is no
common supervision for the members of the unit
sought. Some employees not sought to be included in
the unit share supervision with employees who are in
the proposed unit.
The Petitioner describes the requested unit as all
employees who render services pursuant to the "oper-
ation of the comprehensive community mental health
center." However, the employees who the Petitioner
contends would comprise this group do not share a
community of interest in view of the facts stated
above. We find that the unit petitioned for is an
arbitrary grouping of employees inappropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining.
While the Petitioner has not refused to represent
employees in any other unit, it has failed to specify
which alternate units would be acceptable. Further-
more, we are unable to determine, on the basis of the
record, what grouping of the Employer's employees
would constitute an appropriate unit. While there
appears to be a high degree of centralization with
regard to personnel policies, there is insufficient
evidence to determine whether an employerwide or
other, smaller, unit would be appropriate. There are a
number of programs and job classifications in the
Employer's operation which were listed at the hearing,
but were not described with any clarity or detail. In
addition, the unit considered in these proceedings
includes only one-third of the Employer's work force.
Considering the narrow spectrum of facts presented at
the hearing, we are unable to specify an alternate
appropriate unit. Accordingly, the petition will be
dismissed. Murray Corporation of America-Ecorse
Plant, 101 NLRB 313, 315 (1952).
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
744