Chase House, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1978

235 N.L.R.B. 792 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

Inc.1 372.*
En~ployees
-RC- i.e.,
9(c)
the
Cities-
test
IS
1
Carholic
Corporurion Drpurrmenl Fcdcral Program,
Y o u n ~ C h r ~ s ~ ~ u n Associarron a/'Mrrropol~ran Chica,go,
along Hourc Associurion,
issues
Curholic i,/Cl~rrtr,go, Depurrment
Fcdcral Prqyam.<,
- .
program
alia,
O'Neal,
whlch
O'Neal
sources.Wn
e.g.,
does
lim~ts
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Chase House, and Local Child Care
Division, Service International Union,
AFGCIO, Petitioner. Case 13 13784
April 7, 1978
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF

ELECTIONS

Upon a petition duly filed under Section of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hear-
ing was held before Hearing Officer Edward D.
Klaeren. Following the hearing, and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the case was
transferred to the Board for decision. A brief entitled
"Closing Argument of Employer" was filed by The
Chase House. Inc.
Subsequently, the Board, sua sponte, remanded this
case to the Region to reopen the record."further
hearing was held on December 16, 1976, and the
parties thereafter filed additional briefs.
The Board has considered the entire record herein,
including the briefs of the parties, and makes the
following findings.
1. The Employer, a nonprofit corporation affili-
ated with Episcopal Archdiocese of Chicago,
operates three Head Start centers and a day care
center, The Chase House. The Head Start centers are
run pursuant to contracts with Model
CCUO, hereinafter Model Cities, an agency of the
city of Chicago. The day care center is operated with
funds raised from private sources.
The Petitioner seeks to represent the Employer's
day care center and Head Start employees. The
Employer contends that jurisdiction should be de-
clined because its operations do not affect commerce
within the meaning of the Act. Alternatively, the
Employer argues that the Head Start Centers share
the City's exemption from the Act under either the
"control of labor relations" or the "intimate
connection" test, and that the day care center alone
does not meet the jurisdictional standard for such
enterprises. The Employer argues that, if jurisdiction
asserted, certain employees should be excluded as
supervisors and that others are professionals and
therefore entitled to a separate vote.
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
The name of Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
This case was remanded along with Bishop of Chicago, A
Sole. of 235 NLRB 776, and
Women's 235 NLRB
788. These two cases, decided this day, with Hull
235 NLRB 797, also decided this day, involved the identical jurisdictional
as presented herein. The Board's remand order is essentially the same
as that quoted in Bishop A Corporation Sole.
of 235 NLRB 776.
The initial issue that we address is whether the
Head Start centers are exempt from the Act under
the "control of labor relations" test, can the
Employer bargain effectively with a union despite
Model Cities' guidelines?
To receive funding for the Head Start centers, the
Employer must submit a so-called work program and
budget to Model Cities for approval. The work
outlines the centers7 objectives, and the
budget lists the centers' anticipated expenses. Both
must satisfy Model Cities' guidelines which cover,
inter the terms and conditions of employment of
Head Start personnel.
Lillian Tauber, the director of Children's Services
for Model Cities, and Margaret the Employ-
er's executive director, testified about Model Cities'
guidelines as follows:
The budgets must comply with Model Cities'
guidelines set forth the types of expenses
Model Cities considers reimbursable. The guidelines
include a staff-to-child ratio that determines the
number of staff that Model Cities will reimburse the
Employer for at each center. testified, how-
ever, that the Employer is free to use its own money
to hire additional staff if it wants. The guidelines also
establish educational qualifications for several of the
job categories at the centers, and Model Cities checks
each hire's background to see that these qualifica-
tions are met. The Employer, however, hires its own
employees.' The Employer has the power to dis-
charge Head Start personnel without Model Cities'
approval, and Model Cities checks only to see that
employees are discharged according to a fair proce-
dure and receive a hearing if desired.
Model Cities has established a salary range for
each category of Head Start employees and provides
additional money to cover the costs of annual salary
increments. The Employer, however, is free to
increase salaries above what Model Cities provides
by using funds from other addition,
although Model Cities will not reimburse for salaries
paid at overtime rates, the Employer can use its own
funds to do so.
Model Cities will cover the costs of certain fringe
benefits, life and health insurance and pension
contributions, for Head Start employees, but others,
Model Cities not provide the Employer with a list of applicants.
Nor are applicants required to take a civil service exam. For the less skilled
jobs. Model Cities requires that hiring priority be given to the parents of
children enrolled at the centers and to residents of the neighborhood where
the centers are located.
5 Tauber indicated that there would be to the size of salary
increments a delegate agency could provide using its own funds. She did not
specify, however, what these limits would be.
235 NLRB NO. 107
House
Program,s
there.9
2(2)
Act.1°
$283,000
centers"
6 Citi- for
Start
receive,
t h w wnsiders
determined
8
drafl fmt wllective-
This
Thin
Adam,
H a u e A~sociation,
9(c)(l)
2(6) 2(7)
O'Neal,
unit."
ar.d
staff.13
Act.14
syra,
chat
lo appeam to argued
wntmlled
Community
controls
11 & N w e ~ S c W & Na
Fann iq tmated
forjurirrdictional
12
Employds alternative contention
13
WNeal, Andrew
teacherdiuector,
14
Federal Progranu,
THE CHASE HOUSE, INC. 793
such as dental insurance and end-of-year bonuses,
are not reimbursable.6 However, the Employer is not
prohibited from providing Head Start employees
with fringe benefits that Model Cities will not
reimburse. In addition, while Model Cities will
reimburse the costs of a day's sick leave per month
only, the Employer can provide for additional sick
leave days using funds from sources other than
Model Cities.
Evidence was also received regarding the collective
bargaining that had taken place between the Hull
House Association, another delegate agency, and the
Hull House Employees Organization, hereinafter the
Organization. That evidence was essentially the same
as that introduced in Hull Association7 and
Catholic Bishop of Chicago, A Corporation Sole,
Department of Federal and we see no need
to repeat the summaries found
Based upon the facts above, we find that for the
reasons explained in Hull House Association, supra,
and Catholic Bishop of Chicago, supra, the City, acting
through Model Cities, does not control labor rela-
tions at the Head Start agencies or that the Head
Start centers are "intimately connected with the
City. The Head Start centers therefore do not share
the City's exempt status under Section of the
The record shows that during fiscal 1975, the
Employer had revenues of approximately
and a combined direct and indirect inflow of
approximately $2 1,500. Based upon these figures, we
find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and satisfies the
jurisdictional standard for day care and
that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction over the Employer herein.
2. We find, as stipulated by the parties, that
Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
Tauber testified that Model will reimburse a delegate agency
the wst of providing Head employees with the same fringe benefits the
delegate agency's non-Head Start employees provided they are
among fringe benefits Model Cities reimbursable. At the
same time, Model Cities' policy of adopting the delegate agency's fringe
benefit structure for its non-Head Start employees does not guarantee the
Head Start employees will receive the full range of fringe benefits that are
reimbursable under Model Cities' guidelines. For example, the exhibits
show that no contributions were made for a retirement fund for the Head
Start employees involved herein, apparently because no retirement fund
existed for the Employer's non-Head Start employees. Thus. to a certain
extent, the type of fringe benefit Model Cities reimburses is by
the delegate agency's existing fringe benefit policy.
7 235 NLRB 797 (1978).
235 NLRB 776 (1978).
Tauber testified that she saw a copy of the
bargaining agreement negotiated with Hull House, but did not comment on
it to Hull House officials in any way. testimony indicates that she did
not approve the agreement before it went into effect. conclusion is
corroborated by Robert Hull House's executive director. See Hull
235 NLRB 797, fn. 8 (1978). According to her testimony
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section and Section
and of the Act.
4. As indicated, the Employer also contends that
the unit sought by Petitioner includes supervisors
and professionals.
First, the Employer contends that the four teacher-
directors are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act. We agree. The record shows that a teacher-
director is assigned to each of the Employer's four
locations. Besides teaching, each is responsible for
the implementation of the Employer's child develop-
ment program at the center to which he or she is
assigned. As such, they direct the work of each
center's employees and interview and recommend
applicants for hire to who testified that she
usually follows their recommendations. Although
O'Neal is responsible for disciplining all employees,
the teacher-directors have authority to grant time off.
We find that the teacher-directors are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act and will therefore
exclude them from the
The Employer also contends that the centers'
teachers and assistant teachers are professionals
within the meaning of the Act. The teachers teach
basic science, math, and language skills to the
children, evaluate the children's progress, research
new cumculum methods, train and instruct
subordinate The job requires a bachelor's
degree in early childhood or primary education or an
equivalent degree. Accordingly, we find the teachers
are professionals within the meaning of the
We do not believe, however, that the assistant
teachers satisfy the statutory definition for profes-
sional employees. The assistant teacher's position
requires only an associate of arts degree in early
childhood education or early childhood development
or 2 years of college with 30 credit hours of either
early childhood education or practice teaching. With
in Catholic Bishop of Chicago, Tauber only reviewed the first
agreement to check it did not violate Model Cities' guidelines. See 235
NLRB 776.
The Employer also have initially the Community
Fund labor relations at the Chase House day care center and, as
a result, that that day care center was also exempt from the Act. The record,
however, does not establish that the Fund is exempt from the
Act or that it Labor relations at this center.
Salt Pepper Kindergarten 2, 222 NLRB 1295
(1976) (Member dissenting). Here, we have the Head Start
centers as day care enterprises purposes.
AS we have excluded the teacher-directors as supervisors, we need not
reach the that they are professional
employees.
The teacher-directors also are each assigned a class and perform the
same functions as a teacher. According to St. Center has a
but no teacher, because there is only a single classroom
there.
See Catholic Bishop of Chicago, A Corporation Sole, Department of
235 NLRB 776.
9(b)
Ashland
11 1
9(b)(l)
1 Ashland
1 1
(6):
unit.
tiey represented
publica-
tion.]I5
MEMBER PENELLO,
sufficient
worhng
employees he
$250,000
& &
Kinderrarten 2.l6
jurisdiztion
~rovide
un&rprivilegei
Employer.17
budget
excelsior footnote rrom publicat~on.] "delegale
'6
' 1
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these minimal academic requirements, we cannot
find that the work of the assistant teacher requires
knowledge of an advanced type acquired by a
prolonged course of specialized intellectual study in
an institution of higher learning.
Based upon the above findings and the record as a
whole, we find the following unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section of the Act:
All teachers, assistant teachers, teacher aides,
social service, food service and clerical employees
employed at the Employer's child care centers
located at 211 South Avenue, 4550
North Heritage Avenue, 48 North Hoyne Ave-
nue, and 1201 West th Place, Chicago, Illinois,
excluding all managerial employees, supervisors
and guards as defined in the Act.
The unit set forth above includes professional and
nonprofessional employees. However. the Board is
prohibited by Section of the Act from
including professional employees in a unit with
employees who are not professionals unless a majori-
ty of the professional employees vote for inclusion in
such a unit. Accordingly, to ascertain the desires of
the professional employees as to inclusion in a unit
with nonprofessional employees, we shall direct
separate elections in the following voting groups:
Voting group (a): All teachers, assistant teachers,
teacher aides, social service, food service and
clerical employees employed at the Employer's
child care centers located at 21 South
Avenue, 4550 North Heritage Avenue, 48 North
Hoyne Avenue, and 1201 West lth Place,
Chicago, Illinois, excluding all managerial em-
ployees, supervisors and guards as defined in the
Act.
Voting group All teachers employed at the
Employer's child care centers, but excluding all
other employees, managerial employees, supervi-
sors and guards as defined in the Act.
The employees in the nonprofessional voting group
(a) will be polled to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented for collective-bargaining
purposes by Local 372, Child Care Division, Service
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO.
The employees in voting group (b) will be asked
two questions on their ballot:
omitted
222 NLRB 1295 (1976).
Model Cities adminrsters the Head Start programs, but subcontracts
(1) Do you wish to be included with nonprofes-
sional employees in a single unit for purposes of
collective bargaining?
(2) Do you wish to be represented for purposes
of collective bargaining by Local 372, Child Care
Division, Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO?
If a majority of the professional employees in voting
group (b) vote "yes" to the firs, question, indicating
their wish to be included in a unit with nonprofes-
sional employees, they will be so included. Their
votes on the second question will then be counted
together with the vote of the nonprofessional em-
ployees to decide whether or not the Union has been
selected to represent the combined bargaining
If, on the other hand, a majority of the professional
employees do not vote for inclusion, they will not be
included with the nonprofessional employees. Their
votes on the second auestion will be counted to
decide whether or not wish to be by
the Union in a separate professional unit. If a
majority in either the professional unit alone, the
nonprofessional unit alone, or the combined unit,
vote for the Union, the Regional Director will issue
an appropriate Certification of Representative for
such unit or units.
[Direction of Elections omitted from
dissenting:
The Petitioner seeks to represent employees who
work at three Head Start centers and one dav care
center operated by the Employer. I am persuaded
that Model Cities-Chicago Committee on Urban
Opportunity (Model Cities), an agency of the city of
Chicago, exercises control over the Head
Start centers' labor relations policies as to disable the
Employer from bargaining with a union over the
wages, hours, and other conditions of the
at those centers. day care center,
although privately funded and not subject to Model
Cities' dictates regarding its labor relations, does not
meet the jurisdictional standard for such
centers established in Salt Pepper Nursery School
No. I would therefore not assert
over either the Head Start centers or the
day care center run by the Employer.
The Head Start centers. which dav care
and educational services f o r chil-
dren, are funded on an annual basis through con-
tracts between Model Cities and the By
these contracts, each of which contains a and
the actual operation of the centers to designated agencies."
generally pnvate employers engaged in providing social services. Head Start
position,ls
sufficient
e.g.,
centen cost
form
'8
Atkinr &
Federal
undertaking
accomplishment Th-us,
deterhine
-
working
Act."lg
established
precludes jurisdic-
tion.20 Znc.,
A R 4
10
pan funded antipoverly
services essential the
arc
jurisdiction.
Inc.. (1968).
THE CHASE HOUSE, INC. 795
a "work program" outlining in detail the expenses
and operations of each center for the year, Model
Cities governs virtually all facets of the centers' labor
relations. Thus, Model Cities has established salary
ranges for every employee job classification, and
each contract specifies the exact amount to be paid
each employee out of Model Cities' funds, the
educational and other qualifications required for
each the hours to be worked by the
employees, and the vacations, holidays, and fringe
benefits to which the employees are entitled. Further,
Model Cities conducts regular and detailed audits to
insure compliance with its standards, and may
terminate a contract with the Employer for noncom-
pliance.
Model Cities exercises the same degree of control
over the labor relations policies of each of the
employers which operate its Head Start centers. In
my dissent in Catholic Bishop of Chicago, A Corpora-
tion Sole, Department of Federal Programs, 235
NLRB 776, which involved another Model Cities'
delegate agency, I explained in detail my reasons for
concluding that such employers are not granted
freedom to engage in genuine collective
bargaining. I would therefore dismiss the petition in
this case, as regards the Head Start centers, for the
same reasons I refused to assert jurisdiction over the
employer in Catholic Bishop.
MEMBER MURPHY, dissenting:
Contrary to my colleagues, I would not assert
jurisdiction over the Employer's three Head Start
centers. I find that the city of Chicago, acting in
furtherance of fundamental governmental objectives,
exercises substantial and pervasive control over the
labor relations policies of the centers herein which
precludes the Employer from effectively bargaining
concerning those centers' working conditions.
Employer's Head Start centers are funded through
the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The primary
purpose of the Head Start programs is to provide
social and educational services for children of pover-
ty. The centers are operated pursuant to service
contracts let annually by Model Cities-Chicago
Committee on Urban Opportunity (hereinafter Mod-
el Cities) an agency of the city of Chicago. The
contracts with the city include a budget and a wage
program covering, the type of cumculum,
dietary plan, and social and medical services, which
are supported to the extent of 80 percent of the of the program
by the Federal Government, leaving 20 percent which is supplied in the
of in-kind services by the delegate agencies.
Although the Employer does the initial screening and selection of
hires, candidates for promotions, etc., such actions must be reported to
Model Cities within 5 days for its approval.
N.L.R.B.v. E. C. Company, 331 U.S. 298,406 (1947).
must be approved by the city before the city will
agree to allocate funds for the centers' operation.
In addition, Model Cities sets all operational
standards for the Employer's programs. Thus, the
"Standards for Project Design" specify all employee
classifications for the centers' personnel, educational
and experience qualifications for each classification,
detailed uniform job descriptions for each staff
position, and corresponding salary levels.
Model Cities further specifies hours of operation,
vacations, holidays, fringe benefits, ratio of staff to
children, and total employee complement. To en-
force its standards, Model Cities closely monitors all
aspects of the Employer's programs and may termi-
nate a contract for noncompliance.
The facts of the instant case do not differ material-
ly from those presented in Catholic Bishop of Chicago,
A Corporation Sole, Department of Programs,
235 NLRB 776. For the reasons more fully set forth
in my dissenting opinion in that case, I find that the
Employer's Head Start programs are funded as part
of a Federal comprehensive antipoverty program
designed to meet the specialized social and educa-
tional needs occasioned by the poverty environment
and to open economic opportunities for a deprived
class of citizens by freeing them from child care to
enter the work force. In implementing the Federal
policy, the city of Chicago (in lieu of to
provide such services directly) has chosen to contract
with a private nonprofit agency to provide these
fundamental services subject to substantial and
pervasive controls which enable the city to insure the
of its objectives. as shown
supra, the city regulates every aspect of the centers'
labor relations policies, frequently monitors each
center's operations to -compliance with
Model Cities' guidelines, and retains authority to
terminate a contract for failure to comply with
Model Cities' guidelines.
In sum, I find that Model Cities' labor relations
policies applicable to the Employer's Head Start
centers have significantly limited any discretion on
the part of the Employer to determine those
conditions "that would form the basis for collective
bargaining as contemplated by the Under
these circumstances, I can see no choice under the
Board's policies but to find that such
extensive control our assertion of
Herbert Harvey, 171 NLRB 238 (1968);
Services, Znc., 221 NLRB 64 (1975); Teledyne
In the alternative, since the Employer's Head Start centers are
operated as of a governmentally program and offer
which are and basic to furtherance of that interest. I
wnclude that the services provided by the Employer intimately related
to fundamental governmental objectives. Accordingly. I find that in any
event it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert Cf.
Herbert Harvey, 171 NLRB 238,240
con-
clude
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Economic Development Company, 223 NLRB 1040 policies impel me-however reluctantly-to
(1976). that the Board should not assert jurisdiction
I reach this conclusion even though I am mindful over these centers. Accordingly, I would not direct
of the fact that certain employees at these Head Start an election in any unit which includes the Employer's
centers may desire union representation. But the Head Start employees.
facts, the law, the Federal policies, and this Board's