Somerset Manor, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 1647 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

SOMERSET MANOR, INC.
Somerset Manor, Inc.' and Local 120, Building
Service Employees' International Union, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case 19-RC-4654
April 18, 1968
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
hearings were held before Dale L. Bennett, Hearing
Officer of the National Labor Relations Board. Fol-
lowing the hearings and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8,
as amended , by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 19, the case was transferred to the
Board for decision? Briefs have been filed by the
Petitioner and the Employer.3
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is a State of Washington cor-
poration engaged in the operation of a private, or
proprietary, 43-bed nursing home located in What-
com County, Washington. All of the Employer's
employees and patients are residents of Whatcom
County.
In 1967 the Employer received gross revenues in
excess of $121,000, of which more than $48,000
was from State and county welfare payments, and
the remainder from private patients . In the course
of its operations during the past year, the Employer
expended $11,000 for purchases of goods, supplies,
and services, of which purchases of goods and sup-
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
z The original hearing in this case was held on December 14, 1967
Thereafter, the instant case and two other nursing home cases were
reopened at a consolidated hearing held on January 18, 1968 The Re-
gional Director , thereafter , severed one of the cases and issued a decision
therein, and transferred the other two cases to the Baord. The Board
hereby severs the instant case for purposes of its decision herein
3 The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the
record and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
' The Employer concedes that of approximately $4,000 of its purchases
from three local suppliers , about $1,800 of such purchases originated out
of State . We find, however , on the basis of the evidence that the correct
1647
plies valued substantially in excess of $1,800
originated outside the State of Washington.4
The Employer contends that its volume of in-
terstate commerce is so negligible as not to warrant
assertion of jurisdiction by the Board over its
operation. The Employer further urges reconsidera-
tion of the $100,000 gross receipts standard set by
the Board, in the exercise of its discretionary
authority, for asserting jurisdiction in the nursing
home industry.' The Employer proposes that the
Board adopt an additional minimum inflow stand-
ard of $10,000 to $20,000, so as to eliminate from
the Board's jurisdiction nursing homes with insub-
stantial inflow and no other interstate contacts.
In the recent University Nursing Home case, the
Board, after careful consideration of the growing
and substantial impact exerted upon commerce and
the public health and welfare of the Nation by the
nursing home industry, decided on the $100,000
gross receipts standard in order to insure orderly
and effective administration of our national policy
for a significant portion of the industry. In our view,
the Employer has presented no compelling argu-
ment for modification of our adopted discretionary
standard.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Em-
ployer's operations satisfy the Board's discretionary
standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over
proprietary nursing homes. Nor is the Employer's
indirect inflow, substantially in excess of $1,800, de
minimis so as to remove the Employer's operations
from the Board's legal power to assert jurisdiction.'
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the
Board finds that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction in this proceeding.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer, as
stipulated by the parties, constitute a unit ap-
figure for such indirect out-of-State purchases approximates $1,900 In ad-
dition, with respect to the remaining $7,000 of purchases for such items as
drugs, meats , and dairy products , the Employer contends that they were
made from local intrastate suppliers The evidence shows, however, that a
significant part of such purchases did in fact originate outside the State In
these circumstances , it is reasonable to conclude that the Employer's in-
direct inflow substantially exceeded $1,800.
University Nursing Hoine, Inc , 168 NLRB 263
See Aurora City Lines, Inc., 130 NLRB 1137, 1 1 38, enfd 299 F.2d 229,
231 (C.A 7, 1962), wherein the court upheld the Board's assertion of legal
jurisdiction on the finding that $2,000 of indirect inflow was not de
rnininiis.
170 NLRB No. 185
1648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
propriate for the purposes of collective- bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees employed by the Employer at its
Bellingham, Washington, nursing home, but
excluding office clerical employees, registered
An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the
eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director
for Region 19 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of
Election . The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties
to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the
nurses ; licensed practical - nurses, professional
employees, confidential employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act. -
[Text of Direction of Election ' omitted from
publication. ]
Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to
comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inc ,156 NL1B
1236.