Community Services Planning Council

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 798 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

I)I( ISI()NS ()1 NA I IONAI. I .A()OR RI.A I IONS BOARDI)
Community Services Planning Council/Area 4
Agency on Aging and Service Employees Interna-
tional Union iocal 22 (SEIU) AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner
Community Services Planning Council, Inc., and
Community Services Planning Council, Inc. Em-
ployees, Petitioner. Cases 20 RC' 13537 and 20
RC 13581
July 30, 1979
DECISION AND D[IRECTION OF ELC'TIONS
BY C'HAIRMAN FANNIN(; ANI) MI:MHI RS J NKINS
ANI) lRtF:SI)AI.i
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section
9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a consolidated hearing was held on June 8
and 11, 1976,' before Hearing Officer William L.
McEntire. Following the hearing and 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
20, this case was transferred to the National abor
Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, all parties
filed briefs.
On August 11, 1977, the Board issued a Notice To
Show Cause why the Board should not find that the
same relationship which had existed between Com-
munity Services Planning Council, Inc., and Area 4
Agency on Aging as of the hearing herein had not
continued to date. A response was filed on September
22, 1977. by James Mills, the executive director of
Community Services Planning Council in which he
indicated in part that the proposed Area 4 Agency on
Aging severance from Community Services Planning
Council did not occur. No other party responded to
the Notice To Show Cause.
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.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudical error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. Community Services Planning Council, Inc.,
herein also referred to as CSPC, is a nonprofit volun-
tary association of social service agencies with its
principal office located in Sacramento, California,
CSPC performs planning, evaluation, and consulting
functions primarily for California state social service
I All dates herein are 1976 unless otherwise indicated.
agencies in the areas of aging, education. health,
youth services, and amil and child welfare but does
not provide any service to individuals.2 CSP(' ex-
ecuted a contract with the California Department of
Aging under which ('SP(' was designated as "area
agency." Linder the regulations implementing title
1l1 . ('SP(' was required to establish a separate
agency to administer programs tor the elderly and
consequently created Area 4 Agency on Aging. here-
inafter referred to as Area 4, also hereinafter referred
to collectivel with ('SP(' as the Employer.
As a subsidiary of CSP(', Area 4 is responsible for
administering the funding of certain FEederal pro-
grams in or near the eight-county area surrounding
Sacramento. Area 4 also audits these programs to de-
termine their effectiveness. An example of Area 4's
finding activities is a "senior crafts shop" which is
funded by Area 4 through grants to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority of Sacramento. 4 The rec-
ord reveals, however, that responsibility for the actual
operation of the shop" remains exclusively in the
hands of the Sacramento Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority. Area 4 rents space and purchases
paper and typing services rom ('SPC.
Direct oversight of ('SPC's activities is the respon-
sibility of' an executive director who is ultimately an-
swerable to a board of directors. The board of direc-
tors is composed of persons elected by participating
delegate agencies and of several ex officio members
who serve by virtue of positions they hold in the com-
munity. 5 Area 4's employees, by contrast to those of
CSPC, are accountable to the executive director of
CSP(C, as well as to the director of area 4.6 Each di-
rector is then answerable to the board of directors as
well as to an advisory committee. It does not appear
from the record that the State of California exercises
any control over the appointment of members to the
board.]
('SPC has an operating budget of approximately
$154,000, of which 40 percent is contributed by the
Federal Government, while the remainder is provided
by the Sacramento United Way and non-Federal
2 he record indicates that C(SPC provides similar services to some private
local concerns; however, the record does not reseal the identity or number of
such concerns involved or the exact extent of the services provided to them.
It is clear that this aspect oI'('SPC's functions and a minor part of its opera-
tion.
Programs for Older Americans 42 U.S.C. 3000 (196%5).
4All profits from the shop are returned to the State's Department on
Aging, where the money is used to fund other services.
lhe record is unclear as to the nature of the positions these individuals
hold in the community.
' Ihe record reveals that the director of' Area 4. Deanna Lea, apparently
has the authority to hire and fire employees orf Area 4. but that her actions
are subject to the prior approval of CSPC"s executive director. James Mills.
However. the majority of the members of the advisory committee, as
distinguished from the board of directors, are appointed by the county hboard
of supervisors The functions of the advisors committee are not specifically
set forth in the record.
243 NLRB No. 122
798
(OMMUNITY SFRVI(ES PI.ANNING (OUIN(CIL
matching funds. Area 4 has an operating budget of
approximately $829,000, comprised of $710,000 from
the Federal Government and the remainder from the
United Way and non-Federal matching funds. CSPC
purchases goods and services valued at $10,000 or
less, and Area 4 spends between $15,000 and $20,000
annually on such purchases.
In addition to its evaluation and planning services,
CSPC publishes a community services directory
which describes all of the social service programs
available in the Sacramento area. All revenues de-
rived from this enterprise are used to pay' the costs of
publishing the directory.
The record indicates that the executive director of
CSPC, James Mills, has direct oversight over the op-
eration of both organizations, including their labor
relations. Thus, the evidence shows that besides han-
dling labor matters for CSPC, Mills is ultimately in
control of labor relations for Area 4 as well, as evi-
denced by the following: (I) his participation in griev-
ances presented by Area 4 employees, (2) his involve-
ment establishing hiring guidelines for certain job
categories of area 4, and (3) his direction of the work
of at least one Area 4 employee on several occasions.
The record further establishes that on occasion the
same employees perform typing services for both
Area 4 and CSPC, and Area 4 was created solely
because Federal regulations required CSPC to estab-
lish a separate entity in order to administer its pro-
grams for the aging. In addition, it is clear that the
operations of CSPC and Area 4 are functionally inter-
related since CSPC provides planning, evaluation,
and consulting functions, and Area 4 was created to
fulfill a contract with the California Department on
Aging. Thus, inasmuch as there is interrelationship of
operations, centralized control of labor relations, and
common management, we find that CSPC and Area 4
constitute a single employer. 8
The Employer contends, inter alia, that it is not
engaged in any substantial commercial activity which
would warrant the Board's assertion of jurisdiction.
Service Employees International Union Local 22
(SEIU), AFL-CIO, herein also called SEIU, con-
tends, inter alia, that the Employer meets the Board's
monetary jurisdictional standards and has a substan-
tial impact on interstate commerce, and that the
Board therefore should assert jurisdiction. Commu-
nity Services Planning Council, Inc., Employees,
hereinafter called council employees, took no position
on the jurisdictional issue. For the reasons set forth
below, we have decided to assert jurisdiction over the
Employer's operations.
8 See Barrise Sheer Metal Co, In,.. 4 Division o,/Airtron. In. 199 NlR
372. 378 (1972): Los Angeles Marine Hardware (. 4 Dtiont rM/ ,UIwi,
Marine Associates. Inc.. 235 NLRB 720 (19781)
The Board, in The Rhode Island Catholic Orphan
-.Asvtrlu a/A/a St. Alovsius. Home, 224 NLRB 1344
(1976), established the test for assertion of jurisdiction
over eleemosynary institutions. St. Alovsius Home
overruled the Board's previous decision in Ming
Quong (Children'S (enllr 9 and established that in light
of the 1974 health care amendments to the Act the
only remaining basis for declining jurisdiction over a
charitable organization is a finding that its activities
do not have a sufficient impact on interstate com-
merce to warrant the exercise of the Board's jurisdic-
tion. Thus, in ('atholic Social Serices, 225 NILRB 288
(1976), the Board asserted jurisdiction over a non-
profit, charitable. religiously oriented social service
agency which provided family counseling to individ-
uals. relying on The Rhode Island Catholic Orphan
.4svlum , .upra. In Catholic Social Seri'ices. supra, the
Board also stated that in view of the fact that the
employer's annual gross income exceeded $400,000 it
would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction therein. We therefore conclude that under the
principles enunciated in these cases assertion of juris-
diction is warranted in this proceeding.
Furthermore, the Board has indicated that where
the greatest portion of an employer's revenues ulti-
mately come from the Federal Government, "the
Employer's participation in and receipt of moneys
through federally supported health care programs
adequately demonstrates that the Employer's opera-
tions have a substantial effect on commerce, and es-
tablishes the required statutory jurisdiction of this
Board."' ° Although East Oakland involved a health
care facility, the same principles applies to other
types of industries. Thus, in the instant case, the rec-
ord establishes that the combined income of CSPC
and Area 4 was in excess of $1 million, nearly 75
percent of which was contributed by the Federal
Government. Further, the record indicates that CSPC
and Area 4 spend a combined total of between
$25.000 and $30,000 for goods and services annually.
Accordingly, since the Employer's gross revenues ex-
ceed any of our analogous monetary jurisdictional
standards (see Catholic Social Services, supra) and the
Employer receives a substantial portion of its moneys
from the Federal Government, we conclude that the
Employer's operations have a sufficient impact on in-
terstate commerce to warrant the Board's exercise of
jurisdiction. Accordingly. we find that it will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.l
9 210 NI.RB 899 (1974)
,o See Last Oak land ('ornnr tt alt i 4 Iiaonr . I , 218 N L RB 1271).
1271 (1975). (airheld Park ('omprehentic (Communit Health ('nter. Inc,
232 NLRB 1046 (1977)
11 (SPC Iontcnds that iI is a poliical su bdivisllon ol the State oI (ahlifor-
((;nrnuedi
799
DE(CISIONS OF NATIIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations'2 involved claim to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 7
and Section 9(c)( ) of the Act.
4. SEIU petitioned for an overall unit of all clerk
typists, secretaries, communication specialists. family
planning coordinators, bookkeepers, social planners.
grantsmen, accountants/business managers, fiscal of-
ficers, community liaisons, and county health coordi-
nators of the Employer, excluding all executive direc-
tors, administrative assistants, the director of Area 4
Agency on Aging, guards, and watchmen as defined
in the Act. However, SEIU is willing to participate in
an election in any unit or units the Board finds appro-
priate. SEIU also contends, contrary to the Em-
ployer, that Ray Castille. Richard Manners.' and
James Sibley are not supervisors within the meaning
of the Act and should be included in any appropriate
unit.
Council employees seeks a unit of all employees
employed by "the Community Planning Council,
Inc., excluding all employees of Area 4, Agency on
Aging, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act."
Council employees takes no position as to the status
of Sibley.
The Employer contends that if the Board asserts
jurisdiction herein the overall unit requested by SEIU
is inappropriate, and that election should be directed
in separate units of Area 4 and CSPC employees.' 4
The Employer further contends that James Sibley is a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and, if not
-a supervisor, that he is a confidental employee.'
We find merit to the contention that separate units
are appropriate. The record establishes that CSPC
nia. and that therefore the Board may not assert jurisdiction herein. How-
ever, the record fails to establish that CSPC either: (I) was created directly
by the State so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the
government or (2) is administered by individuals responsible to public offi-
cials or the general public. N.L.R.B. v. Natural (;as Utilthv District of Haw-
kins County, 402 U.S. 600 (1971). Accordingly, we find no merit to this
contention.
2 Although council employees status as a labor organization was placed in
issue at the heanng. the record establishes that it is an organization in which
employees participate and that it exists, at least in part, for the purpose of
dealing with CSPC concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages. rates of
pay, hours of employment. or conditions of work. Accordingly, we conclude
that council employees is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec.
2(5) of the Act.
i0 In response to the Notice To Show Cause Executive Director Mills
stated that employees Richard Manners and Ray Castille. whose employ-
ment status was originally at issue, were no longer employed by Respondent.
and this statement was not contradicted by any other party. Accordingly, we
find it unnecessary to make a determination as to their status.
4 The parties stipulated that there were no professionals in the petitioned-
for unit.
15 The Employer also contends that part-time employees should be in-
cluded in any unit found appropriate. Inasmuch as the record establishes
that these employees are regular part-time employees, they are included in
the unit herein found appropriate.
and Area 4 maintain separate physical facilities; pro-
vide for separate immediate management of each or-
ganization; and have different ultimate goals, since
Area 4's primary purpose is to administer programs
for the elderly while CSPC's involvement concerns
planning and consulting functions which extend to
other areas of social welfare including, but not limited
to. the problems of the aged. With respect to the work
of each organization, it appears that there are no joint
assignments of work or interchange among the em-
ployees. The wage scales for employees of area 4 dif-
fer from those of CSPC employees, and the expenses
that they receive for travel differ. Furthermore, it is
clear that each organization has a different fiscal year,
funds are not commingled, and separate audits are
conducted. Accordingly, we conclude on the basis of
all the foregoing that separate units are appropriate.
As noted above, the Employer opposes the pro-
posed inclusion of employee James Sibley, fiscal offi-
cer for Area 4, in any unit on grounds that he is a
supervisor and/or confidential employee. The record
evidence, while delineating some of his duties, fils to
affirmatively indicate that Sibley acts in a confidential
capacity to individuals who formulate, effectuate, or
determine labor relations policies.'6 We therefore find
that Sibley is not a confidential employee. The record.
however, is unclear with respect to the extent of his
supervisory authority, if any. Accordingly. we shall
permit him to vote subject to challenge.
Finally, the status of Diana Petty is apparently in
issue because her job category of planning and ad-
ministrative aide for CSPC was not explicitly men-
tioned in SEIU's petition. The Employer contends
that this category should be included in any unit
found appropriate, and no other party argues to the
contrary. Accordingly, inasmuch as it appears that
Petty's job functions are similar to those of unit em-
ployees and there is no evidence tending to show that
she should be excluded, we shall include the category
of planning and administrative aide in the CSPC unit.
On the basis of all the foregoing we conclude that
the following units are appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
Unit A. All employees employed b Community
Services Planning Council. Inc.. excluding all employ-
ees of Area 4 Agency on Aging. guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
Unit B. All employees employed by Area 4 Agency
on Aging. excluding all employees of Community Ser-
vices Planning Council, Inc., guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Direction of' Elections and lxrcelvior footnote omitted
from publication.]
It The B F (Godri h (rmpan,, 115 NLRB 722. 724 1956).
800