The Salvation Army, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 406 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Salvation Army, Inc. and Teamsters Local 814,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Petitioner . Case 2-RC-17235
June 30, 1976
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND WALTHER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by
Teamsters Local 814, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America,' a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Peter E. Gillespie.2 Following
the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the
Regional Director for Region 2, this proceeding was
transferred to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the
Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs in support of
their respective positions.'
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 prejudicial error.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds as follows:
1. The Salvation Army is a nonprofit religious and
charitable organization incorporated by a Special
Act of the New York State Legislature. Its purpose is
to preach the Gospel, disseminate Christian beliefs,
and undertake the spiritual, moral, and physical re-
habilitation of needy people. As part of its program,
it has established in the United States approximately
i The names of the Petitioner and the Employer appear as amended at the
hearing
2 At the hearing , Amalgamated Services and Allied Industries Joint
Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, was per-
mitted to intervene on the basis of its submission of a sufficient number of
authorization cards to warrant intervention As the Intervenor 's request,
however, is for a unit different from that which the Petitioner seeks to
represent , it was incumbent upon the Intervenor to support its motion to
intervene with a petitioner's showing of interest The Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Company, Inc, 130 NLRB 226 (1961), Dierks Paper Company, 120
NLRB 290 (1958) Since the number of authorization cards which the In-
tervenor submitted was less than 30 percent of the employees in the unit it
seeks, the Hearing Officer's ruling permitting intervention is overruled and
the Intervenor 's motion to intervene in this proceeding is denied , without
prejudice to its right to file a petition supported by an adequate showing of
interest for the unit which it seeks
3 The Employer filed a request for oral argument which is hereby denied,
as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of
the parties
130 Men's Social Service Centers which provide
homeless men, mainly alcoholics, with food, shelter,
clothing, meaningful work, medical and psychiatric
treatment, and spiritual guidance.
To support this charitable endeavor, each Social
Service Center operates a warehouse and a number
of thrift stores which process and sell used clothing,
furniture, and other items donated to the Salvation
Army by private individuals and businesses." Benefi-
ciaries entering into residence at a Social Service
Center participate in this work, in varying degrees, as
part of their "Work Therapy Program." Work assign-
ments are made on the basis of their adaptability to
particular jobs and they receive a weekly gratuity
which is based, not on the value of their labor, but on
their progress in overcoming their handicaps.
Additionally, each of the Social Service Centers
has a full-time staff of supervisors, store managers,
truckdrivers, sorting room workers, and clerical em-
ployees. These individuals are acknowledged em-
ployees who work for wages and are subject to disci-
pline and discharge for unsatisfactory performances
or infraction of rules. Unlike the beneficiaries, they
are hired, as needed, for specific jobs and are expect-
ed to keep regular hours and meet minimum produc-
tion standards. Deductions are made from their pay-
checks for income and social security taxes, and
payments are made by the Employer for unemploy-
ment compensation insurance. The work of each
paid employee enables a Social Service Center to ac-
cept two beneficiaries for treatment.
In the past year, the Social Service Centers in the
Employer' s eastern territory derived approximately
$19 million in revenue from the operation of ware-
houses and thrift stores and purchased trucks, tires,
parts, and other goods valued in excess of $50,000
from firms outside of their respective States. The Em-
ployer provided an additional $3.5 million towards
the operation of the Social Service Centers from
other funds.
The Employer contends that the Board, in the ex-
ercise of its discretion, should decline to assert juris-
diction over its warehouses and thrift stores because
they are not conducted to maximize profits or effi-
ciency and are intimately related to its rehabilitative
efforts. We find no merit to this contention. The
Board has traditionally asserted jurisdiction over
those operations of religious and charitable organiza-
tions which are, in the generally accepted sense, com-
mercial in nature.5 Moreover, even where the opera-
4 A portion of the contributions , rags and some bric-a-brac, are sold at
wholesale to dealers
5 See, for example , American National Red Cross, District of Columbia
Chapter, 211 NLRB 587 (1974), The First Church of Christ Scientist in Bos-
ton, Massachusetts, 194 NLRB 1006 (1972), Disabled American Veterans,
225 NLRB No. 48
THE SALVATION ARMY
tions are essentially noncommercial, the Board does
not now distinguish between profit and nonprofit or-
ganizations for jurisdictional purposes.'
Here, the Employer concedes that it is engaged in
collecting, processing, and renovating waste materi-
als and disposing of them for monetary return. Its
operations have grown from small scale solicitations
of clothing to be used by its beneficiaries to a nation-
al endeavor which engages in direct sales to the pub-
lic and utilizes and is dependent upon the services of
large numbers of paid employees. Moreover, its an-
nual gross income from these operations alone far
exceeds any of the dollar volume standards set by the
Board for deciding whether to assert jurisdiction. In
these circumstances, it cannot reasonably be said
that the Employer's wholesale and retail activities are
simply ancillary to its charitable purpose and have
no appreciable impact upon commerce.
Since the Employer has a gross annual volume of
business of more than $500,000 and has annual out-
of-state purchases of more than $50,000, we find that
it satisfies our jurisdictional standards for retail and
wholesale enterprises' and that under either of the
foregoing rules it would effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor or-
ganizations claiming to represent certain employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and
9(c)(1) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of ap-
proximately 15 truckdrivers employed at the Men's
Social Service Center at 536 East 46th Street, New
York, New York, excluding dispatchers, any other
employees, guards, and supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act. The Employer contends that such a
unit is inappropriate for bargaining and that the ap-
propriate unit would consist of approximately 480
drivers employed at Social Service Centers through-
out its eastern territory. The Employer further con-
tends that any appropriate bargaining unit should in-
clude employee dispatchers.
The record shows that the Employer's eastern ter-
ritory is responsible for overseeing the operations of
40 Men's Social Service Centers located in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and
four of the New England States. Each of the centers
has a separate budget and payroll, keeps its own rec-
Inc (Idento Tag Operations), 112 NLRB 864 (1955), The Sunday School
Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 92 NLRB 801 (1950)
6 The Rhode Island Catholic Orphan Asylum a/k/a St Aloysius Home, 224
NLRB No 70 (1976).
7 Carolina Supplies and Cement Co, 122 NLRB 88 (1958), Siemons Mail-
ing Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958)
407
ords, and operates within its own geographical area.
Each is headed by a director who has the authority to
direct day-to-day operations, to appoint supervisors,
and to hire, fire, and discipline employees. Wage
rates and commissions are determined through con-
sultations between the individual centers and the ter-
ritorial office and vary from location to location. Pol-
icies with respect to fringe benefits, such as pensions,
hospitalization insurance, vacations, and holidays,
are formulated on a national level and are applied,
with minor variations, throughout the territory.
There are few, if any, transfers between centers on
either a temporary or permanent basis.
The Social Service Center in Manhattan, New
York, has a paid staff of approximately 4 supervisors
and 52 employees, including the 15 truckdrivers
whom the Petitioner seeks to represent. Ten of the
drivers are engaged in collecting merchandise from
contributors and delivering it to the warehouse.
Others pick up merchandise from collection boxes in
their areas, transport merchandise from the ware-
house to store, dump unsalable goods, or run a shut-
tle service between the Center's various facilities. All
drivers work out of the garage and unloading areas
which occupy the first floor of the warehouse, under
the direct supervision of a truck supervisor who de-
termines their routes, assigns them to jobs, checks
punctuality and attendance, grants time off, recom-
mends wage increases, and metes out discipline. All
have beneficiary helpers and play some part in their
rehabilitation. None is engaged in work for other de-
partments or in the stores.
From the foregoing, it is clear that each Social Ser-
vice Center functions as an essentially autonomous
segment of a "Federation of Local, Regional and
National Social Service [Agencies]" and that the Em-
ployer has failed to present sufficient countervailing
factors to overcome the presumptive appropriateness
of a single-location bargaining unit.' It is equally
clear that the truckdrivers at the Manhattan center
constitute a homogeneous and readily identifiable
group, having a separate community of interest from
other employees by virtue of differences in their jobs
and functions, their separate supervision, and their
lack of interchange with other departments .9 Accord-
ingly, absent any collective-bargaining history and
since no union seeks to represent the employees in
any broader unit, we find that a unit of truckdrivers
employed at the Employer's Men's Social Service
Center in Manhattan, New York, is an appropriate
unit for bargaining.
8 Haag Drug Company, Incorporated, 169 NLRB 877 (1968), Sav-On
Drugs, Inc, 138 NLRB 1032 (1962)
9 G Fox & Co, Incorporated, 155 NLRB 1080 (1965); J L Brandies &
Sons, Inc, 142 NLRB 825 (1963)
408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The remaining point at issue is whether the dis-
patcher has a sufficient community of interest with
the truckdrivers to warrant his inclusion in the unit.
As to this, the record shows that there are only three
dispatchers in all of the eastern territory, that the
positions are usually reserved for beneficiaries and
that the present Manhattan dispatcher, who works
under the supervision of the truck supervisor, was
"graduated" from beneficiary to employee status on
the day of the hearing. The record is unclear as to the
precise nature of his duties. However, he apparently
takes telephone calls from individuals who have mer-
chandise to contribute, or receives messages of such
calls from the Employer's telephone operators, and
fills out slips containing the appropriate information
and gives them to the truck supervisor. There is no
evidence with respect to his location in the ware-
house, the frequency of his contacts with the truck-
drivers, or his relationship to other clerical employ-
ees. We are therefore unable to determine his unit
placement. Accordingly, we shall not include him in
the unit at this time but shall permit him to vote
subject to challenge.10
Accordingly, for all of these reasons, we find the
following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All truckdrivers employed by the Employer at
its Manhattan, New York, Men's Social Service
Center, excluding any other employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
10 Cf St John's Associates, Inc, 166 NLRB 287 (1967), enfd 392 F 2d 182
(C A 2, 1968), Allied Stores of New York Inc d/b/a Stern's, Paramus, 150
NLRB 799, 808, fn 49 (1965)