Henry M. Hald High School Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 512 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Henry M. Hald High School Association, Roman
Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, and the Sisters of
St. Joseph and Lay Faculty Association, Local
1261 , American Federation of Teachers, AFL-
CIO. Case 29-CA-3823
February 7, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO
On September 24, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Benjamin K. Blackburn issued the attached Deci-
sion I in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
Hald filed limited exceptions and a supporting brief.
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 considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
I This Decision was corrected by an Erratum issued September 25, 1974.
The corrections have been incorporated in the attached Decision.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN K. BLACKBURN , Administrative Law Judge:
The charge was filed on April 22, 1974.1 The complaint
was issued on June 28 . The hearing was held on August 14
in Brooklyn , New York.
The only issue litigated 2 was the motive of Sister John
Crucis, principal of Bishop Kearney High School, in
failing to renew the contracts of Teachers Camille Botta,
Anna DiMaria , and Jeffrey Murphy and Assistant Librari-
I No representative of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn
appeared at the hearing and no counsel entered an appearance on its behalf.
Counsel for the Hald Association raised the issue of whether the charge had
ever been served on the diocese . I find that it was, on June 17, 1974, by
personal service on Brother Medard Shea , assistant superintendent for
teacher personnel for the Catholic Schools Office of the Diocese of
Brooklyn.
2 Whether the Hald Association and the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Brooklyn are affiliated organizations with common direction and labor
relations policy and are joint employers are the only other issue posed in
this record . The parties stipulated that it should be resolved on the basis of
216 NLRB No. 93
an Virginia Carew for the 1974-75 school year. For the
reasons set forth below, I find the General Counsel has
failed to prove that her motive was one proscribed by the
Act and, therefore, has failed to prove Respondents
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
Upon the entire record, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION AND JOINT EMPLOYERS
The circumstances under which the Roman Catholic
Diocese of Brooklyn created the Hald Association and
turned over to it the operation of certain diocesan high
schools and the circumstances under which the Hald
Association subsequently turned over operation of the
particular high school involved in this case to the Sisters of
St. Joseph are the substance of Henry M. Hald High School
Association and The Sisters of St. Joseph, 213 NLRB No. 54,
in which the Board issued its decision on September 23,
1974. In this case , the parties entered into the following
stipulation:
The findings and determination of the Board in Case
Number 29-CA-3336 on the issue of, one , jurisdiction,
and two, whether the Henry M. Hald Association and
the Sisters of St . Joseph are joint employers shall be
deemed to be the recommended findings and determi-
nation of the Administrative Law Judge on those same
issues in this proceeding.
As to jurisdiction, the Board , in the absence of exceptions,
accepted "pro forma the findings of the Administrative Law
Judge that the operations of the Respondent affect
commerce within the meaning of Sec . 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act and his conclusion that the Board should assert
jurisdiction here." As to the joint employers issue, the
Board found that the Sisters of St . Joseph was a successor
employer to and not a joint employer with the Henry M.
Hald Association . Pursuant to the stipulation of the
parties, I hereby make the same findings and conclusions.
U. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
At the conclusion of the General Counsel 's case, counsel
for the Sisters of St . Joseph moved for dismissal. I
indicated my willingness to grant the motion on the ground
that the General Counsel had failed to make out a prima
facie case as to motive . Following a discussion about the
significance of such a step , with its concomitant probability
designated portions of the record made before Administrative Law Judge
Lowell Goerlich in Henry M. Hold High School Association and The Sisters
of St. Joseph, Case 29-CA-3336, JD-699-73 (see sec . below entitled
"Jurisdiction and Joint Employers "). On the basis of those portions of the
record made before Judge Goerlich which have been incorporated into the
record in this case , I make the same findings of fact as Judge Goencch and
reach the same conclusion of law; i.e., the Hald Association "is clearly the
alter ego of the Bishop of Brooklyn ." Judge Goerlich's findings of fact which
underlie this conclusion of law are hereby incorporated into this Decision
by reference.
HENRY M. HALD HIGH SCHOOL ASSN. 513
that the Board would merely reverse and remand, counsel
withdrew his motion and rested without introducing any
further evidence. Consequently, there are no credibility
conflicts in the record and the following facts are
undisputed.
1. The union activities of the alleged
discriminatees
The high school involved in this case-Bishop Kearney
in Brooklyn-was operated by the Hald Association in the
1972-73 school year, by the Sisters of St. Joseph in the
1973-74 school year. Sister John Crucis was and is
principal, both before and after the change. Prior to
September 1, 1973, the faculty consisted of 34 lay teachers
and 33 religious. Twenty-two of the lay teachers were on
checkoff and three others were members of Local 1261
who paid their dues directly to it. (Local 1261, as its name
indicates, is limited to lay teachers. Teachers in Catholic
high schools in its jurisdiction who are members of
religious orders are not represented by it.) After September
1, 1973, the faculty at Bishop Kearney was made up of 36
lay teachers and 41 religious. Twenty-three of the former
were holdovers from the preceding year. Of that group, 15
had been on checkoff and three had paid their dues
directly to Local 1261.
There was a 1-day strike on May 1, 1973, called by Local
1261 against the Hald Association. At Bishop Kearney all
but approximately five of the lay employees stayed out.
Among those who stayed out were Teachers Camille Botta
and Anna DiMaria. Among those who stayed in was
Jeffrey Murphy, a substitute English teacher at the time.
The record does not indicate whether Assistant Librarian
Virginia Carew stayed out or in.
The Hald Association called another strike in September
1973. At Bishop Kearney, five teachers stayed out on the
first day. They were Marianne Finn (Local 126 l's delegate
at Bishop Kearney), Catherine Caulfield, Beatrice Maho-
ney, Virginia Chappin, and Anna DiMaria. Virginia Carew
stayed out on the second day and returned to work on the
third day. Camille Botta joined the strikers on the third day
and remained out until the strike ended. The strike lasted
approximately 4 weeks. After approximately 2 weeks,
Virginia Chappin resigned her position as a teacher and
ceased to participate in the strike. The strike ended at
Bishop Kearney on Monday morning, October 15, 1973,
when the five teachers who were still on strike sought to
return to work.
Marianne Finn, Catherine Caulfield, Beatrice Mahoney,
Anna DiMaria, and Camille Botta were interviewed
separately by Sister John Crucis on the morning of October
15. Finn , DiMaria, and Botta were told that they had been
permanently replaced and were asked to leave the building.
Presumably , Catherine Caulfield and Beatrice Mahoney
were permitted to return to work. Finn, DiMaria, and
Botta went to another high school at which the president of
Local 1261 teaches and told him what had happened to
them . They returned to Bishop Kearney at the close of the
schoolday and slipped into the auditorium where Sister
John Crucis was conducting a faculty meeting. They made
no effort to participate in the meeting.
Sister John Crucis told the assembled faculty she had let
Finn, DiMaria, and Botta go because of her concern for
the students. She said that she had felt she could not have
substitute teachers filling in for them throughout the strike,
therefore she had hired permanent replacements for them.
She asked for comments from the teachers. The first few
who responded talked in terms of the morality of what she
had done. Jeffrey Murphy introduced a new note when he
spoke. He said he did not agree with what Sister John
Crucis had said about being concerned with the students'
education. He said he could not see how replacing teachers
who were familiar to the students with new teachers was
better for the students. He added that he thought Finn,
DiMaria, and Botta were being punished for being in the
Union. Sister John Crucis did not respond to his remarks
nor, apparently, to any of the other teachers who spoke up.
The teachers were divided on whether Finn, DiMaria, and
Botta should be reinstated. Some spoke against them.
Others in addition to Murphy spoke for them. There was
some talk about forming a committee to study the question
and names were taken of persons willing to serve on it.
However, no committee was ever formed. The meeting
broke up on this indecisive note.
Finn, DiMaria, and Botta attended a meeting of Local
1261 that evening. During the meeting they were told by
the president of the local that they were to return to work
the next morning. They reported to Sister John Crucis on
the morning of Tuesday, October 16, 1973. She told them
she had changed her mind not because of anything the
Union had done but because the board of trustees, i.e., her
superior, had told her to. Finn, DiMaria, and Botta
returned to their regular classes.
Marie Maggiore, the third of three teachers who had
taken over Anna DiMaria's classes during the strike,
continued at Bishop Kearney for several weeks in a tutor's
role, at which time she transferred to another high school.
Felice Lofredo, who replaced Camille Botta during the
strike, was still a teacher at Bishop Kearney at the time of
the hearing. The record does not reveal the name of
Marianne Finn's permanent replacement, what happened
to him or her when Miss Finn was reinstated, or that
anything of significance to this case happened to Miss Finn
after her reinstatement . I presume that, unlike Anna
DiMaria and Camille Botta, her contract was renewed for
the 1974-75 school year.
Jeffrey Murphy was not a member of Local 1261 at the
time of the faculty meeting at which he spoke up for Finn,
DiMaria, and Botta and suggested Sister John Crucis'
motive for not taking them back was an antiunion one. He
joined at a meeting of Local 1261 in January 1974. At that
meeting an official of the local made a joke about the
school being closed and Sister John Crucis being taken
away by Federal marshals if she refused to comply with a
Board order in Judge Goerlich's case . At a faculty meeting
the next day, Sister John Crucis assured the teachers that
the school was not about to close and she was not about to
be taken away by marshals. She did not indicate she was
aware of anything else that had transpired the night before,
including Murphy's joining the Union.
Local 1261 renewed its demand for recognition as
bargaining representative for Bishop Kearney's lay faculty
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in March 1974. The demand took the form of a letter dated
March 14 . It was received by the school sometime after
March 14.
2. The termination of the alleged discriminatees
Teachers and librarians at Bishop Kearney high school
achieve tenure after 3 full years on the faculty; i.e.,
beginning with their fourth year they can only be
discharged for cause.
When the principal or a department head checks on the
work of teachers by observing one of their classes, the
report which is filled out is called an observation.
a. Anna DiMaria
Anna DiMaria teaches Italian . The 1973-74 school year
was her third at Bishop Kearney . She was observed four
times during her first 2 years, once by Sister John Crucis,
the other three times by various department heads. The
two observations from this period which are in evidence
both date from the 1971-72 school year , her first. One,
prepared on October 5, 1971, by Sister John Crucis, rates
Miss DiMaria as generally above average and contains the
following "Additional Remarks:"
Thank you for an enjoyable lesson . I like particularly
your voice tones , the rate at which you spoke allowing
for clarity, and your very gentle manner both in
explaining and correcting . Your classroom manage-
ment is excellent . Even though it is early in the term,
the girls seem to know your routine and what is
expected of them.
Another , prepared on December 17, 1971, by Miss
DiMaria's department head is generally favorable. It
contains the following "Specific recommendations or
comments:"
Class reacts well to your teaching. Try to use some
audio-visual aids.
During the brief period after October 16, 1973, when
Miss DiMaria and Miss Maggiore were both teaching
Italian at Bishop Kearney, Miss DiMana made a derogato-
ry remark about Miss Maggiore which came to Sister John
Crucis' attention . Sister John Crucis spoke to Miss
DiMaria about her relationship with Miss Maggiore. She
suggested the three of them should discuss the matter. The
record does not indicate such a discussion was ever held.
In late January the parents of one of Miss DiMaria's
students complained to Sister John Crucis about an
adverse progress report Miss DiMaria had made on their
daughter . They argued that a teacher who had been out on
strike for a month would not have had sufficient opportu-
nity to observe the girl to render the sort of report sent
them by Miss DiMaria . When Sister John Crucis relayed
this complaint to Miss DiMaria as a matter of information,
Miss DiMaria asked for the student 's name. Sister John
Crucis did not give it to her. Miss DiMaria said she
thought her report had been justified . Sister John Crucis
agreed with her.
Miss DiMaria gave the usual midterm examination to
her third-year Italian students in January. She used an old
New York State Regents examination in order to give them
a chance to practice the sort of examination they would
face at the end of the school year when they would have to
take a current regents examination . The regents examina-
tion comes at the end of 3 years of study. Miss DiMaria's
students had, at this point, been studying Italian for only 2-
1/2 years . Consequently , there was some material on the
midterm examination which they had not yet studied.
Approximately 15 out of her 54 third-year students flunked
the midterm . At least one complanied to Sister John Crucis
that the examination was unfair because it contained
material not yet covered in class . In a conversation in early
February, just a week or two after the conversation in
which Sister John Crucis and Miss DiMaria had discussed
the parental complaint about Miss DiMaria's progress
report , they discussed this situation . Sister John Crucis
questioned the wisdom of including material not yet
covered in class on a midyear examination.
Sister John Crucis observed one of Miss DiMaria's
classes on March 6, 1974. Sister Teresa Collins, Miss
DiMaria's department head , observed one the next day.
The observation prepared by Sister John Crucis is not in
the record . The one prepared by Sister Teresa Collins rates
Miss DiMaria its average in seven different respects such as
"professional attitudes" and "control of class," excellent in
"personal appearance ," and below average in "use of
appropriate methods and techniques ." There are also five
numbered "specific recommendations or comments." Each
is critical. For example:
1. It would be good if you were a little more insistent
about students coming on time to class and not
forgetting their books . This would be a great help to
your getting started right away and in covering the
work you have planned.
5. Grammar lesson - use the deductive method
rather than the inductive . I think that you will find that
the students will be better able to make applications
(hopefully!).
Miss DiMaria refused to sign the observation in the space
provided on the front of the form . On the back she wrote:
I decline to sign the observation at this time since I
disagree with some of the ratings . I would like to be
reevaluated.
Anna DiMaria
Miss DiMaria went to the office on March 14, 1974, to
discuss the unfavorable observation Sister John Crucis had
made out on her the week before . Miss DiMaria refused to
sign this one also . Sister John Crucis wanted a witness to
that fact. As she got up from her desk and went to the door
to summon a vice principal, Miss DiMaria said she wanted
a witness present also. Sister John Crucis said , "No, no,
don't make it a union thing." The vice principal came into
the room , nodded when Sister John Crucis said that Miss
HENRY M. HALD HIGH SCHOOL ASSN.
DiMaria was refusing to sign the observation , and left
immediately.
The main thrust of this conversation was a discussion of
the criticisms Sister John Crucis had entered on her
observation . At the conclusion , Sister John Crucis told
Miss DiMaria she was not going to renew her contract for
the 1974-75 school year. She did not give a specific reason
although Miss DiMaria assumed she meant "it was just for
my teaching ability ." She offered to give Miss DiMaria a
recommendation.
Miss DiMaria's contract was not renewed for the 1974-
75 school year.
b. Camille Botta
Camille Botta teaches social studies. The 1973-74 school
year was her second at Bishop Kearney . She was observed
once by Sister John Crucis during the 1972-73 school year.
The observation prepared at that time is not in the record.
I presume it was generally favorable.
Miss Botta was one of three teachers in the social studies
department during the 1973-74 school year who taught
freshman and sophomore classes exclusively. (Jeffrey
Murphy was another. See below.) She failed approximately
15 of her students, out of a total of 140, at midyear.
(Murphy flunked 3 or 4 more than she did out of a total of
130.) In early February, Sister John Crucis called her in to
discuss what Sister John Crucis considered a high ratio of
failures . Miss Botta did not agree that the number she had
failed was inordinately high. (The midyear grade counts
only one-fifth of the mark for the school year. Murphy
flunked only 6 at the end of the year, all of them among the
15-20 he had failed at midyear. The record does not reveal
how many Miss Botta failed at the end of the year.)
Sister John Crucis observed one of Miss Botta's classes
on March 6, 1974, as well as one of Miss DiMaria's. Like
Miss DiMaria, Miss Botta went to the office on March 14
to discuss the observation Sister John Crucis prepared on
her. (This one is not in the record either.) At the end of the
discussion, Sister John Crucis said that she would not be
rehiring Miss Botta for the next year. Miss Botta asked
why. Sister John Crucis said it was not because of the
observation per se, for it was not really a poor observation,
just average . She said that she would not rehire Miss Botta
because her attitude toward the students was not what
Sister John Crucis expected - Miss Botta put the students
down - and her ideas did not go along with the
philosophy of the school. Miss Botta did not understand
what the principal meant by "attitude" and "philosophy."
She said she did not think those were the real reasons, she
believed the decision had something to do with a
"personality conflict" between them, not her teaching
ability. She asked Sister John Crucis if her reason had
anything to do with Miss Botta's affiliation with the Union.
(Only Miss Botta testified about this conversation. The
record does not indicate Sister John Crucis' reply. If it had
been anything other than a firm denial , I am sure Miss
Botta would not have neglected to mention it.)
Miss Botta's contract was not renewed for the 1974-75
school year.
515
c. Virginia Carew
Virginia Carew was an assistant librarian in charge of
audiovisual equipment and materials at Bishop Kearney
High School. The 1973-74 school year was her second
there.
Like Miss DiMana and Miss Botta , Miss Carew went
into the office to speak to Sister John Crucis on March 14,
1974. She went on her own initiative in order to talk to the
principal about her prospects for the 1974-75 school year,
a custom among faculty members at that time of the year.
Sister John Crucis said, "I guess you're here to discuss next
year?"
Miss Carew said, "Yes,"
Sister John Crucis said she was not going to rehire Miss
Carew for budgetary reasons. Miss Carew asked if there
was any problem with her work. Sister John Crucis said
there was not , she would give Miss Carew a recommenda-
tion. Sister John Crucis said that a religious who was not
then working at Bishop Kearney had spoken to her about
the assistant librarian position and was going to come to
the school to talk to Sister Jean Timothy, the librarian.
Religious faculty members cost less than lay faculty
members.
Miss Carew's contract was not renewed for the 1974-75
school year. In the event, the religious to whom Sister John
Crucis referred has not been hired as assistant librarian for
the 1974-75 school year. The record does not indicate
whether she was, in fact, interviewed by Sister Jean
Timothy. As Sister Jean Timothy discussed with Miss
Carew between March 14 and the end of the 1973-74
school year, audiovisual materials have been decentralized
from the library to the various departments in which they
are used. Sister Jean Timothy's secretary has assumed Miss
Carew's other duties as assistant librarian.
d. Jeffrey Murphy
Jeffrey Murphy teaches English and social studies. The
1973-74 school year was his first as a full-time faculty
member at Bishop Kearney . His field is English , not social
studies . He was hired as an English substitute in March
1973 and served in that capacity for the balance of the
1972-73 school year. When he was hired for the 1973-74
school year, Sister John Crucis told him that he would
teach English if there were an opening in that department,
otherwise social studies . There was no opening in the
English department . Consequently, during the 1973-74
school year, Murphy, like Miss Botta, taught freshman and
sophomore social studies.
Murphy was also informed in mid-March that he would
not be rehired for the 1974-75 school year . He was not as
precise as Miss DiMaria , Miss Botta, and Miss Carew,
about the date on which he spoke to Sister John Crucis.
Since, like Miss DiMaria and Miss Botta , he went to see
the principal in the week following receipt of an unfavora-
ble observation by her, I find that he was, in effect,
terminated so close to March 14, 1974 , as to make no
difference . The observation which led to his termination
was the only one ever prepared on him by Sister John
Crucis . Two prior observations , one by the head of the
English department (presumably during the 1972-73
515a DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
school year) and one by the head of the social studies
department, are not in the record.
Murphy went to the office one day in mid-March to
discuss with Sister John Crucis an observation she had
filled out on him the prior week. He said he was not
satisfied with her appraisal and asked why she had rated
him as she had. He asked her what would be considered
average on the scale of 1 to 5, the lower number being the
higher rating, on the form used. Sister John Crucis said 3.
Murphy said, "Well, why did I get a number of 4's in
different categories?"
After a discussion of why, they concluded that the
observation was not really a true reflection of Murphy's
teaching abilities. Murphy said he did not want it to go into
his permanent file. Sister John Crucis said he could do with
it as he pleased. He tore it up.
Murphy then said, "Well, it seems that I'm not wanted
here next year, you won't need my services."
Sister John Crucis said, "Yes, that's right." She said that
she thought Murphy should teach English rather than
social studies wherever he went.
Murphy's contract was not renewed for the 1974-75
school year.
b. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel finds Sister John Crucis' real
motive for failing to rehire Miss DiMaria, Miss Botta, Miss
Carew, and Murphy is their activities in connection with
the September-October 1973 strike. He emphasizes, with
respect to Miss DiMaria and Miss Botta, that Sister John
Crucis initially sought to invoke the rule pertaining to
permanent replacement of economic strikers without,
however, attempting to explain why that incident has any
significance in light of the fact that Miss DiMaria and Miss
Botta were like Marianne Finn insofar as what happened
to them in October 1973 was concerned or why Sister John
Crucis singled out them and Miss Carew for retribution
while not doing anything at any time to discriminate
against Marianne Finn, Catherine Caulfield, and Beatrice
Mahoney, the three other teachers who stayed out for
extended periods of time. The General Counsel's principal
argument is based on timing . He contends that the causal
link between the events of October 1973 and the events of
March 1974 is to be found in the fact that March 1974 was
the first opportunity Sister John Crucis had to terminate all
four alleged discnminatees following the union activities
which she found objectionable.
The Sisters of St. Joseph, the only Respondent which
participated in the litigation of this issue, finds Sister John
Crucis' real motive in her dissatisfaction with the teaching
performances of Miss DiMana, Miss Botta, and Murphy
and in economic pressures where Miss Carew is concerned.
As already indicated, I ruled at the conclusion of the
General Counsel's case on the basis of the facts set forth
above that he had not made out a prima facie case. In view
of the fact that counsel for the Sisters of St. Joseph elected
to withdraw his motion to dismiss and stand on the record
created by the General Counsel, the argument advanced by
the General Counsel and counsel for the Charging Party
that all the circumstances - for example, the fact that
Miss DiMaria's 1973-74 observations were critical while
those from prior years were not - created sufficient doubt
as to Sister John Crucis' motive to require Respondents to
go forward with the evidence does not apply. However, any
distinction drawn at this stage between failure to make out
a prima facie case and failure to establish discriminatory
motive by a preponderance of the evidence is more
technical than real since all the evidence in the record is
the General Counsel's. I hereby reaffirm the ruling I made
at the hearing.
I find nothing in the facts set forth above to establish
that Sister John Crucis was motivated in March 1974 by
resentment over the union activities of any or all of the
alleged discriminatees in the fall of 1973. Nothing about
the events which led up to Sister John Crucis' decision not
to renew each one's contract is inherently inconsistent with
the nondiscriminatory reasons advanced by Respondents.
Absent some evidence that Sister John Crucis was engaged
in a deliberate plot to get rid of them, arguments of pretext
based on changes of attitude or changes of method or
importance of transgressions are founded on suspicion
only and do not rise to the level of fact based on evidence.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that the critical
observations rendered on Miss DiMaria, Miss Botta, and
Murphy just prior to the decision not to rehire them for the
1974-75 school year were not honest and fair. In Miss
Carew's case, there is no evidence that the economic
reason advanced by Respondents did not exist. On the
contrary, the record shows that the Sisters of St. Joseph did
reduce the budget at Bishop Kearney by getting rid of her.
There is no evidence that Sister John Crucis' concern over
parental complaints and the giving of a midyear examina-
tion which included material not yet covered in class was
not genuine. Reliance on the fact that the teacher involved
felt these criticisms unjustified and her manner of doing
her job right misses the point that the burden of proof is
not on Respondents to prove a good reason for discharge
but on the General Counsel to prove a bad one. None of
these alleged discnminatees had been at Bishop Kearney
long enough to acquire tenure. Even by standards applied
in other forums the issue of good cause over bad cause
would not arise. Here, the maxim that, under the Act, an
employer may discharge for good cause, bad cause, or no
cause at all so long as his motive is not one of the narrow
causes proscribed by the Act is peculiarly applicable.
In my view, all that the General Counsel has proved is
that employees who engaged in union activities of varying
magnitude were, in effect, discharged some 5 months later
under circumstances which, viewed objectively, were
totally consistent with the nondiscriminatory motives
claimed by Respondents . Whether couched in terms of
prima facie case or preponderance of the evidence, it is not
enough. I find, therefore, the General Counsel has failed to
prove Respondents violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by, on or about March 14, 1974, discharging Camille
Botta , Anna DiMaria , Jeffrey Murphy, and Virginia
Carew, effective August 31, 1974.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
HENRY M. HALD HIGH SCHOOL ASSN. 515b
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Henry M. Hald High School Association, the
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, and the Sisters of St.
Joseph are employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Lay Faculty Association, Local 1261, American
Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint that Respondents
violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act, on or about
March 14 , 1974, by discharging Camille Botta, Anna
DiMaria, Jeffrey Murphy, and Virginia Carew, effective
August 31 , 1974, have not been sustained.
4. Henry M . Hald High School Association and the
Sisters of St. Joseph are not affiliated organizations with
common direction and labor relations policy and are not
joint employers of employees at Bishop Kearney High
School.
5. Henry M. Hald High School Association and
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn are affiliated
organizations with common direction and labor relations
policy and are not joint employers of employees at Bishop
Kearney High School.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed-
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.