Fred Finch Youth Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 77 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

FRED FINCH YOt TH CEN ER
Fred Finch Children's Home, Inc., d/b/a Fred Finch
Youth Center and Retail Clerks Union, Local 870,
United Food and Comnmercial Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO.' Case 32-RC-533
June 26, 1979
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MEMB RS JNKINS
ANt) TRtUESDAI.L
On January 4. 1979, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 32 issued his Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding in which he dismissed the peti-
tion, finding inappropriate the Petitioner's requested
unit of five house social workers and one group home
program supervisor at the Employer's Oakland, Cali-
fornia, facility. Thereafter, in accordance with Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Pe-
titioner filed a timely request for review of the Re-
gional Director's decision on the ground that the Re-
gional Director erred in finding that the house social
workers are supervisors within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act. 2 The Employer filed a statement in
opposition thereto.
The National Labor Relations Board, by tele-
graphic order dated February 22, 1979, granted the
request for review.
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 considered the entire record in this case
and makes the following findings:
The Employer is a California corporation which
operates a facility in Oakland, California, for the pur-
pose of providing care and treatment for adolescents
with severe emotional and social problems. The Em-
ployer operates five residential houses caring for 50
patients and a group home for 6 patients. Each resi-
dential house is staffed by five full-time child care
workers, including one of senior status, and a house
social worker. Each house also employs one part-time
child care worker.
The Petitioner argues in its request for review that
its requested unit of house social workers and the
' The name of the Petitioner. formerly Retail Clerks Union. Local 870.
Retail Clerks International Union, AFI-CIO. is amended to reflect the
change resulting from the merging of Retail Clerks International Union with
Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butcher Workmen of North America on
June 7, 1979.
2 The Regional Director made no finding with respect to the group home
program supervisor, since it would be inappropriate to order an election in a
unit consisting of a single employee. Sonoma-Marin Publishing Compani. 172
NLRB 625 (1968).
group home program supervisor is appropriate. and
that the Regional Director erred in excluding the
house social workers from the unit as supervisors. The
Petitioner's argument is that the house social wokers'
primary responsibilities are clinical in that 90 percent
of their duties involve direct patient contact. Further-
more, the Petitioner asserts that members of its pro-
posed unit perform none of the duties which indicate
supervisory status within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act. e.g., hiring, firing, disciplining, and
scheduling of hours, vacations, and leave time. In
fact, the Petitioner contends that the Employer's su-
pervisory authority is vested not in the house social
workers but only in its executive director and assist-
ant executive director.
The Employer, on the other hand, argues that the
Petitioner's requested unit is inappropopriate inasmuch
as its unit members are supervisors. The Employer
supports its contention with evidence that the house
social workers supervise the senior and regular child
care workers and direct the programs in their respec-
tive houses toward fulfillment of the Employer's goal
of providing child care for its patients. These duties
include, according to the Employer. the training, su-
pervision, and evaluation of child care workers under
them. In essence, the house social workers, it is ar-
gued, have the ultimate and overall day-to-day deci-
sionmaking authority with respect to each house.
Specifically, the Employer contradicts the Petitioner's
contention that house social workers possess no su-
pervisory authority by arguing that they do in fact.
for example, recommend dismissal or suspension and
discipline and evaluate child care workers and that
each takes the place of the executive director and
assistant executive director every seventh weekend
and every seventh weeknight.
In addition. the Employer argues that the Em-
ployer and the Petitioner entered into a Board-ap-
proved stipulation 3 years ago stating that the Em-
ployer's house social workers and the group home
program supervisor were excluded as supervisors.'
After the Petitioner won the election, the Board certi-
fied it for the stipulated unit.4 The subsequent collec-
tive-bargaining agreement embodied the language of
the certified unit.' Thus, the Employer argues that ( )
the parties stipulated to the exclusion of the house
social workers and group home program supervisor
petitioned for herein, and (2) even if they had not, or
even if such stipulation is not valid today. the peti-
tioned-for unit is inappropriate, since it is composed
of supervisors.
Case 20 RC- 13336. signed h the parties on Fehruar Ix. 1976
4Certification issued by Region 20 on March 23, 1976.
Effective November 15, 1976. through June 30(). 1979
243 NLRB No. 15
77
I)(CISIONS (): N l )IONAI. ABOR RLAIIONS BOARI)
The Regional Director dismissed the petition to
represent the Employer's house social workers and
group home program supervisor based upon his find-
ing that the former are supervisors, as well as his ac-
knowledgment of the stipulation. Inasmuch as we
agree with the Regional Director's factual finding
with respect to the house social workers, we do not
adjudicate the efficacy of' the parties' stipulation in
this case.
We find that the house social workers form a line of'
supervision immediately below the level of executive
director and assistant executive director and serve as
coordinators of the Employer's puposes and goals
within each house. In addition, each serves, on a ro-
tating basis, as a substitute for the executive director
and assistant executive director on a designated week-
night and weekend. The house social workers, in es-
sence, function as professional and administrative
heads of their respective houses. Since our exclusion
of the house social workers leaves only one individ-
ual, the group home program supervisor, in the peti-
tioned-for unit, we shall dismiss the petition, since it
would he inappropriate to order an election in a unit
consisting of a single employee."
Based upon the foregoing, we find that the peti-
tioned-for unit of the Employer's house social work-
ers and group home program supervisor is inappro-
priate, and we shall order that the petition herein be
dismissed.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
Sont,,, arU nor Publishing (npl., uprl
78