Evergreen Legal Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 14, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 964 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DI)( ISI()NS 0 NAI IO()NAI IAB()R RI. I IONS BO()ARI) Fiergreen Iegal Ser'ices and ';ashington Iegal 'orkers., Petitioner. Case 19 R( 8917 l)ecember 14. 1979 l)E(CISION ()N REVII W ANI) I)IRI( IO()N OF1 IfI-C I ION BY ( 11AI \ NR \\ I:A\NN( \I) iMl MIi RS .1 NKI\S \N) 'IRt I Sl)AI I On Sptember 15. 1978, the Recgional l)ircctor tot Region 19 issued a l)ecision and Direction of I lec- lion i t ihe aoxc-cintitledI pr-ocecldIing in whicl he 'Ioundl. i/ncer a/il, that the Ilnplocer is subject to the jurisdiction of' the hoardl and directed electios in a ttllil composed of the lImploser's regular enIplooecs and a sep t';llCe ni 1 ol te Inplolr's "( 11 A Cm- pl,?ecs%>. \'ilil h, spar.llc halllolig ll fr1 proleCssiollll aitl nilOlpro'eFssionl tl clipl.(N ees. Iher tIcill'r. in Ilccordlance xtilh Section 102.67 of the National abhol Relations Board Rulesl alnd Regulations. Series 8. as amendled the mployer filed a timelh request for re ie of the Regional I)irector's decision on grounllds that he made fillinclls of' flclt whichl ;ire clearlv erroleousl and tlhat he departed from officiallx reported precedent. 1, telegraphic order datied November 7. 1978. the Board griianted the F mplo er's request fr rciev, is to (I) tile appropriateness of a separate ( 1:1,\ A lni or units: (2) Board jurisdiction over the Institutional Legal Services Project: and (3) the status and inclusion oft lay students working during the school term who hold work-study grants. The oard denied the m- ployer's request for review in all other respects.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. as amended, the Na- tional 1.abor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-melmber panel. The Employer is a nonprofit corporation in the State of Washington that provides legal services to low income persons. The Employer operates laxw of- fices at 30 locations throughout the State, with a cen- tral support office located in Seattle which houses the Employer's executive, administrative. and accounting office. The Employer provides general legal services to low income persons and the elderly poor at ap- proximately one-half of its offices. It also provides special services to participants in federally funded job training programs. to inmates, residents, and patients of various state-operated institutions, to Indian tribes, and to migrant and farm workers. The Emplover employs approximately 100 attor- neys, 35 paralegals, 60 clerical personnel, and 20 'On Nvenmbher 30, 1978. the Bard denied the Iliplo er's reqluest or rrtec ,siderati on of its Order dalted Nlvenmbher 7. 1978. on he grIiunl s that it ralsed nthing not previouslk considered other pe rsons in special jobh categories. It is funded prima;ril b the I.egal Services (orporation, a non- profit l)istrict ot ('olumbia corporation that disburses tunds appropriated b tilhe Congress of the United States to recipients such as the lEmployer. 'I he m- ploher also receives funds from a varletN of other Flederral. state, and other agencies. he highest rank- inig officials 0ol the 1l mploer are its hoard of' directors. he dail\ operations of the Imployer are supervised and coordinated bx Director (ircgor I)allaire. In ost olices and inl ea;lch of tile five specialt\ divisions there is a directilng attorllne. 1. 1 11 ('IIA elpl \ecs lihc Regional l)irector excluded empcn eloes on 'parlial oI' x hole ('I:'I'A grants" f'ron the ovcrall unit ofI' IEc 1 p1o , cIr's regula ;r enipl, ects. Instead. the Re- gional l)irector ouind a separate Ullit of the ( lI A iemploNees to he appropriate. Ihe F rmplo er conltends thlil the (I l'As are tenlporar\ emilloecs who are not entitled to represenitation in a separate unit. The E mploxer also contends that the (ClIl'A employces are not entitled to representation inll unit with nIll- ('1 A emnploces. I he Petitioner has indicated that it would represecnt the ('El As in a separate unit or in a unit with the Ermplo er's regular employees. E nder the C(omprehensive Lmployment and Train- ing Act (( 1 IA) the !nited States l)epartment of I;abor provides Federal funds to state and local gov- ernments to provide job tra;ning and transitional em- plo!melnt to unemployed and underemployed disad- vantaged persons. Ihe state and local governments. as "prime sponsors, make the unds available to pri- vate noniprofit organiziations. Various prime sponsors in the State of Washington have made CE TA grants to the E.mployer. The mploer employs approximately 45 attor- neys. paralegals, and secretaries who are paid under the provisions of the current CETA grants. Approxi- matel half of these employees had at least part of their salaries paid under previous C'ETA grants to the Employer. Although there is no certainty that the ('ETA grants will be renewed, several employees have been supported by CETA grants which have been renewed annually for 3 years or more. Approxi- mately five former CETA employees have been trans- ferred to regular employee status since the Employer began operations. The record indicates that commit- ments have been made by the Employer to transfer approximately ive additional C(ETA employees into regular employee status. The prime sponsor determines eligibility tor CETA employment pursuant to C('ETA regulations based on income, length of employment, and place of resi- dence. Such regulations also provide fr certain pref- 246 NI.RB No. 146 EVERGREEN L.E GAL SERVICES erences to welfare recipients, eligible veterans, and various minority groups. It does not appear, however. that the prime sponsors here retain, or e.ercise, con- trol over actual hiring.2 Instead, there is testimony that the Employer decides which eligible applicants are to be hired. Similarly, the Employer makes the decision on discharges.3 The Employer's contract with the King-Snohomish Manpower Consortium4 and its other CETA con- tracts5 provide that CETA employees shall have the same benefits and working conditions as the Employ- er's regular employees. In its brief in support of its request for review, the Employer concedes that "CETA regulations require Evergreen to provide CE- TAs with the same wages, fringe benefits, and work- ing conditions as are provided to its own non-CETA employees." The record also shows that the Employer's salary scale applies to CETA employees, many of whom re- ceive supplemental wages from the Employer because their CETA funding is below the Employer's salary scale. While the CETA employees receive the same benefits and are governed by the same personnel poli- cies as the Employer's regular employees, the record also shows that the CETA employees have certain additional benefits. Thus, the CETA employees can take grievances beyond the Employer's grievance procedure for resolution before the prime sponsor and ultimately to the Secretary of Labor. In addition, they receive "release time" to look for other jobs and job counselors visit CETA employees during working hours. In support of its contention that the CETA em- ployees are temporary employees, the Employer relies on Memorial Medical,6 where the Board e.cluded "those temporary employees hired pursuant to gov- ernmental training programs." We note that Memo- rial Medical in turn relied on Clark County, supra. The Board did not find or exclude, however, the CETA employees in Clark County because they were temporary employees. Instead, the Board xcluded Cf. The Clark Counfe Menial Center, d/h/a The Mental Health and Fam- ilv Services Center. 225 NLRB 780. 781 (1976)., where "CETA sets the eligi- bility standards for selection of such persons and gives final approval of any employees hired under its auspices only after a conference between the Em- ployer and the local CETA coordinator" We note that a CETA employee who was terminated by the Employer's director sought review of the decision by the Employer's board rather than by CETA. 4The grants provide, in part: "The Sub-Agent [i.e., the Employer] agrees that all participants enrolled under this Program will enjoy the same benefits and working conditions as the regular employees of the Sub-Agent." 5 For e.ample. the Title VI project grants provide, in part, that the Em- ployer is '"[Io treat Public Service Employment employees in the same man- ner as regular employees regarding working conditions. hours of work per day and per week wages, fringe and other benefits. This includes ans incre- ments in wages that may occur Public Service employees are entitled to pay increments the same as regular employees." 6 National G South. In-. a wholiv iowned ubsidiar o' National Liiing (en ter., Inc.. a hollv owned ruhbsdiar of.4 R.4 Services. d/h/a Memorial Mledl- cal. 230 NLRB 976. 979 (1977). the CETA employees in lark County because they did not share a "sufficient community of interest with other nonprofessional employees...." Thus, we find that Memorial AMedicals reliance on Clark County to find such employees to he temporary employees is misplaced. Furthermore, we find that the record evi- dence here does not establish that the ('ETAs are temporary employees. Indeed, the CETA employees here, like all of the Employer's employees, are depen- dent on the e.igencies of revenues from Federal, state, and municipal sources which are generally re- viewed annually.7 Furthermore, as discussed ifra. they share the same wages. benefits, and working con- ditions as the Employer's regular employees. Hence. we find that the CETAs are not temporary employ- ees. The Employer also contends that the CETA em- ployees are not entitled to representation at all, in a separate unit or in a unit with non-CETA employees. The Employer claims that there is nothing for the Employer to bargain about for the CETAs because the CETA regulations require that the C'ETA em- ployees shall have the same benefits and working con- ditions as the Employer's other employees. While we agree with the Employer that a requirement of parity between employees similarly situated undercuts a finding of a separate unit, we find that this same re- quirement favors including the CETAs in a unit with the Employer's regular employees. In Morn Vallef.8 the Board included Manpower em- ployees in a unit of the Employer's regular work force because "these employees [have] substantially the same community of interest as do the other employ- ees involved in this proceeding." In so finding, the Board relied on the fact that "their wages, fringe benefits, and working conditions are identical to those of the Employer's regular employees." In addition, the Board found that the Manpower employees' in- definite length of employment due to financial con- straints facing the Manpower programs is not a suffi- cient basis for excluding the Manpower employees from the bargaining unit. Finally, the Board noted that the "assimilation of the unemployed and un- deremployed into the Nation's work force is a funda- mental aim of Manpower programs in general .... [and that] no useful purpose [would bel served by ex- cluding such employees ... particularly in light of the substantial work interests they share with other unit employees.... " The Board also noted in tMon Vl'alev that it had in 'See Neighhorhod I.egal Services. 236 NlRB 1269 (1978). where the Board found that he contingency of funding received fronm arious govern- ment agencies which are generally reviewed annualIl was insufficient to, make the employees supported by such funds temporary emplosees Mon i'ael, United Health .Serires. Inc. 238 NLRB 916 (19781. We note that Mon ales issued on September 29. 1978. after the Region;al Director issued his L)ecision and Direction of Electilon herein 965 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the past e.cluded employees who were involved in similar training programs, i.e., CETA employees, in The Kent County Association for Retarded Citizens d/b/a J. Arthur Trudeau Center, 227 NLRB 1439 (1977); The Clark County Medical Health Center, d/bha The Mental Health and Family Services Center. 225 NLRB 780 (1976). In Clark County the Board relied on evidence that (I) CETA "gives final ap- proval of any employee hired under its auspices only after a conference between the employer and the local CETA coordinator"; (2) CETA employees have "ac- cess to a special grievance procedure": and (3) the "limited duration of the funding" for CETAs. Kent County did not rely on any new or additional factors but essentially followed the controlling precedent of Clark County. A review of the record here fails to show that the prime sponsor e.ercises the same control over hiring by the Employer as was present in Clark County. In- stead, the record shows that the Employer here makes its own hiring decisions from among persons who sat- isfy the CETA eligibility standards. Although a spe- cial grievance procedure is available to the CETA employees here, there is no record evidence that a CETA employee has e.ercised it. Finally, we do not view the "indefinite length of employment due to fi- nancial constraints" as a sufficient factor to exclude these employees. See Mon Vallev, supra. In short, we find that Clark County and Kent County are distin- guishable and we rely on Mon Valley here. In sum, it appears clear from the evidence de- scribed above and the entire record that the CETA employees share a substantial work interest with the Employer's regular employees. Thus, the substantial similarities in the wages, fringe benefits, and working conditions of the Employer's non-CETA and CETA employees, coupled with the fact that these employ- ees perform the same functions, weigh heavily in af- fording the CETAs representation in the same unit as the Employer's regular employees. Finally, we find that neither the additional benefits available to the CETA employees nor the indefinite length of employ- ment due to financial constraints facing the Federal employment assistance program precludes a finding that the CETAs share a sufficient community of inter- est with the Employer's regular employees. Accord- ingly, we shall include the CETA employees in the unit.9 9 In its bnef on appeal, the Employer represents that the ('CIA amend- ments of 1978 (P.I.. 95 524) were signed into law on October 27. 1978, alter the close of the hearing while the Employer's request or review was pending before this Board. The Employer indicates that these amendments establish (1) prohibitions and ceilings on wage supplements; and (2) limitations on the duration of CETA funding to an individual recipient. The Employer further contends that these changes destroy whatever community of interest ('ETAs may have had among themselves, that the changes establish the temporary nature of ETAs' tenure with the Employer, and that the amendments dem- 2. The Institutional Legal Services Project In its request for review, the Employer pointed out that the Regional Director failed to address its con- tention that the Board should not assert jurisdiction over the Institutional Legal Services Project (ILSP). On the merits, the Employer contends that the Board should decline to e.ercise jurisdiction over the ILSP because the State of Washington Department of So- cial and Health Services (DSHS) controls the wages, benefits, and working conditions of the ILSP staff. The Employer further contends that the ILSP is inti- mately related to the exempt operations of the DSHS. °O The ILSP provides legal services to residents of various correctional, mental retardation, and juvenile institutions operated by the DSHS. Its offices are lo- cated near the various institutions, some shared with other of the Employer's projects and others in sepa- rate quarters. In addition to a project director (Rich- ard Blumberg), a litigation coordinator (Steve Scott), and a corrections specialist, the ILSP has approxi- mately 24 attorneys, paralegals, and clerical person- nel. Four ILSP staff members are either CETAs or VISTAs. The ILSP is funded pursuant to a contract between the Employer and the DSHS. Although DSHS is the primary source of funds for the ILSP, there are CETA and VISTA positions assigned to the ILSP by other government agencies. The Employer's director, Dallaire, testified and the contract between the Em- ployer and DSHS reveals that no provision prohibits ILSP from seeking funds for its activities from other sources." The contract does provide that the Em- ployer may transfer funds between line items to 30 onstrate that the U.S. Congress, not the Emploser controls the wages. hours and working conditions of C(ETAs We reject these contentions. We note that the same 1978 amendments retain the requirement that "All persons employed in public service jobs shall be provided workers' compen- sation. health insurance. unemployment benefits. and other benefits and working conditions at the same level and to the same e.tent as other employ- ees working a similar length of time. doing the same type of work and simi- larly classified ... " P... 95 524, sec. 122 (k). In addition. the regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor on April 3. 1979. e.pressly state that the CETA-funded employees are entitled to the same collective-bargaining benefits, including collective-bargaining coverage. as other employees per- forming similar work. 20 CFR 676.27(b I). Thus. we find that the 1978 amendments relied on by the Employer do not fundamentally alter the sub- stantial work interests shared by the CETAs and the Employer's non-('ETA employees. In these circumstances and for reasons stated elsewhere in our Decision, we reject the Employer's contentions. i°The Employer also renewed its contention that the II.SP employees have no community of interest with the other employees of the Employer. We note that review was granted only on the jurisdictional issue. Hence we do not pass on the Regional Director's findings on community of interest here. lu The parties disagree as to whether Legal Services Corporation Act (L.SCA) funds can be used to support the ILSP. The Employer claims that the LSC'A prohibits such use but the Union claims such lilnds can be used for some (but not all of the insitutional programs 966 tI\ IR(iREIN I.!GAI SRVI(ES'6 percent without the approval of the DSHS project monitor. 2 ILSP Director Blumberg testified that DSHS plays no role in the hiring and firing of ILSP emploxees. The record describes the hiring of litigation coordina- tor Steve Scott, among others, and shows that the ILSP staff and the Employer's director, Dallaire. made such staff selections without DSIIS involve- ment.'l We also note that the contract states that the ILSP employees "are not to he deemed to be emplo.,- ees of the Department." The hours that the ILSP employees work are set hy ILSP Director Blumberg pursuant to the Employer's policies. Although there are restrictions on the hours that ILSP employees are permitted to interview their institutionalized clients, the II.SP employees work the same hours as the Employer's other employees. Simi- larly, working conditions and the grievance procedure are established by the II[SP director and the Em- ployer rather than imposed or controlled by DSIIS. Although the record shows that a committee of the state legislature has conducted a performance audit two times in 6 years. there is no evidence the DSIIS actively supervises ILSP. Indeed, it is not clear that the contract monitor has ever visited ILSP's offices, and Director Blumberg testified that the monitor has discussed compliance with the contract on one occa- sion, but has never directed IISP to take any particu- lar action.'4 In short, it appears clear that ILSP and its director are responsible to the Employer and Di- rector Dallaire rather than to DSHS. The contract does not set individual salary rates. Instead, the budget provides an aggregate amount to be allocated among a specified number of employees within a job classification. The record shows that the ILSP employees received higher wages than most of the Employer's employees in comparable positions prior to June 1, 1978. On that date. the Employer implemented a new uniform salary schedule. Em- ployer Director Dallaire specifically noted in his May 11, 1978, memo to the Employer's employees that all new ILSP employees should be included under the new salary schedule and that present ILSP employees should be phased into the schedule. There is no indi- cation that DSHS participated in the development of 2 There is a dispute as to whether funds earmarked fbr one dimsion can he transferred to another division. The testimony indicates that such transfers have been made. that the regulations are being tightened, but that Rfeihilith may continue without restriction by DSHS 3 The record evidence on the hiring of Harrison and one other IILSP employee as well as the discharge of' a paralegal does not demonstrate con- trol b DSHS over the hiring and firing prxcess Thus. it is clear that the Employer made the ultimate decision in each of those matters and that DSHS has not retained a right to prior approval over staff hiring as as present in .RA Semev. Inc. 221 NLRB 64 (1975). and Telchdni Eiorn,,lnr Development Compoany, 223 NLRB 1040 (1976), relied on b the Emplo er 4 See Mon allet. supra at fn. 8. Compare ARA Services. In, 221 NRB at 65. where the monitor spent approximately 15 IS hours a week at one of the employer's facilities the new uniform salarD schedule or that the schedule was shown ;o I)SHS hefore it was adopted. inall. we noted that the IISP employees receive the same benefits as the Employer's other employees and that the I LSP employees receive no special benefits. We find that the record evidence described above and the entire record demonstrate. amply. that DSHS does not exercise substantial control over the labor relations policy applicable to I I.SP. Instead. it is clear that the Employer can effectively engage in collective bargaining. Hence. we determine that it would effec- tualte the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over I SP. 3. The work stud students The parties agreed. and the Regional Director found. that law students who were employed by the Emplover fbr the summer onl) should be excluded because they are temporary employees. The parties could not agree. however, on the unit placement of two law students who are employed under a work study program governed b\ a contract between the Employer and the students' respective university. The Regional l)irector included these disputed employees because they expect to continue working during the school year and because they perform or assist in the performance of unit work. We agree with the Employer that the disputed work study students should be excluded from the unit. Thus, we note that the two students receive sub- stantially different wages and benefits from other em- ployees. They are hourly paid while the Employer's regular employees are salaried. Furthermore, they do not accrue vacation or sick leave and they are not entitled to medical benefits. In addition, these stu- dents are restricted in the number of hours they may work by the agreements, supra. Finally, we note that there is no agreement between the Employer and these student employees that the students will be hired on a full-time basis after graduation from law school. We shall, for these reasons, exclude these stu- dents from the unit requested herein. 5 In sum, we find that the following employees may constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All regular professional, paraprofessional and office clerical employees, including employees sponsored under the Comprehensive Employ- ment Training Act, those working in the Institu- tions Farm Worker, Employment Law and Sen- Il/. ' ('I It. ome 1or Aged, Inc. d/b'a Shady Oaks. 229 NLRB 54 (1 977 ); Saga f;,od Sinie i o('a/ (, rna. In, . 212 NLRB 786 1974) (Chairman Fanning, tor the reasons set torth hby the Regional Director, would include the work stud 5 liudenis in the unit 967 I)i(ISIONS Of' NA IO()NAI. I.ABOR REI.AlI(ONS O()ARI) ior Citizens projects, staffl attorneys, law graduates not yet admitted to the bar, social workers, paralegals, students employed as regu- lar part-time employees, administrative secre- taries, secretaries and bookkeepers employed hv Evergreen Legal Services: excluding litigation coordinators. directing attorneys, administrative assistant, accountant, librarian/administrative coordinator, administrative bookkeeper, emploN- ees of the Native American project. VISTA vol- unteers, temporary employees, guards and super- visors as defined in the Act. The unit set out above includes professional and nonprofessional employees.'6 owever, the Board is prohibited by Section 9(d)( I) of the Act from includ- ing professional employees in a unit with employees who are not professionals unless a majority of the professional employees vote for inclusion in such a unit. Accordingly, the desires of the professional em- ployees as to inclusion in a unit with nonprofessional employees must be ascertained. We shall therefore direct separate elections in the following voting groups: Voting Group (a): All regular paraprofessional and office clerical employees, including employees sponsored under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, those working in the Institutions, Farm Worker, Employment Law and Senior Citizens projects, paralegals. students working as regular part-time employees, administrative secretaries. secretaries, and bookkeepers employed by Ever- green Legal Services; but excluding all profes- sional employees, including staff' attorneys, law graduates, social workers, litigation coordinators. directing attorneys, administrative assistant. ac- countant, librarian/administrative coordinator, administrative bookkeeper, employees of the Na- tive American project, VISTA volunteers. tem- porary employees and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. Voting Group (b): All regular professional employees including em- ployees sponsored under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, those working in the Institutions, Farm Worker, Employment Law and Senior Citizens projects. staff attorneys, law graduates not yet admitted to the bar and social workers: but excluding paraprofessional and office clerical employees, including '' Based upon the record as a whole and upon stipulations o the partlies the Regional Director found ttolrneys, law graduates who are not yet adnlt- ted to the bar, and social workers to be professional employees within the meaning of the Act. All other unit employees were Found to he nonproles- sional emploNees. paralegals, students employed as regular part- time employees. administrative secretaries, secre- taries and bookkeepers. litigation coordinators, directing attorneys, administrative assistant, ac- countant. librarian/ladministrative coordinator. administrative bookkeeper. employees of the Na- tive American project. VISTA volunteers, tem- porary employees and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. The eployees in the nonprofessional voting group (a) will be polled to determine whether or not they wish to be represented by the Petitioner. The employees in voting group (b) will be asked two questions on their ballot: (I ) Do you desire the professional employees to be included in a unit composed of all profes- sional employees and nonprofessional employ- ees of' the Employer for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining? (2) I)o you desire to be represented for the pur- pose of' collective bargaining by the Washing- ton Legal Workers? If a majority of the professional employees in vot- ing group (b) vote "yes" to the first question, indicat- ing their wish to be included in a unit with nonprofes- sional employees. they will be so included. Their vote on the second question will then be counted together with the votes of the nonprofessional employees. If the professional employees in voting group (b) vote against inclusion, they will not be included with the nonprofessional employees. Their votes on the second question will then be separately counted to determine whether or not they wish to be represented by the Petitioner. There is no indication in this record that the Petitioner would be willing to represent the pro- fessional employees separately if those employees vote for separate representation. However, if' the Peti- tioner does not desire to represent the professional employees in a separate unit even it' those employees vote for such representation, the Petitioner may noti- 'y the Regional Director to that effect within 10 days of the date of this Decision on Review and Direction of Election. The unit determination is based. in part. then, on the results of the election among the professional em- ployees. However, we now make the following find- ings in regard to the appropriate unit: I. If a majority of the professional employees vote tfor inclusion in a unit with nonprofessional employ- ees, the following will constitute the unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act: All regular professional, paraprofessional and of- fice clerical employees, including employees sponsored under the Comprehensive Employ- 968 IVERGRIflN IT(GAL SRVI(IS ment and Training Act. those working in the In- stitutions. Farm Worker, Employment l.aw and Senior Citizens projects. staff attorness. law graduates not yet admitted to the bar. social workers, paralegals. students emplo\ed as regu- lar part-time employees, administrative secre- taries, secretaries and bookkeepers employed by Evergreen Legal Services; excluding litigation coordinators, directing attorneys, administrative assistant, accountant, librarian/administrative coordinator, administrative bookkeeper. employ- ees of the Native American project. VISTA vol- unteers, temporary employees, guards and super- visors as defined in the Act. 2. If a majority of professional employees do not vote for inclusion in the unit with nonprofessional employees, the following two groups of employees will constitute separate units appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: Unit (a): All regular paraprofessional and office clerical employees, including employees spon- sored under the Comprehensive Employment Training Act, those working in the Institu- tions, Farm Worker, Employment Law and Senior Citizens projects, paralegals, students working as regular part-time employees, ad- ministrative secretaries, secretaries, and book- keepers employed by Evergreen Legal Ser- vices: but excluding all professionall employees. including staff attorne'ys. la graduates. social workers. litigation coordliLi- tors, directing attorneys. aldministrative assist- ant, accountant. librarian/administrative co- ordinator. administrative bookkeeper. employees of' the Native American project. VISTA volunteers, temporary employces. guards and superisors as defined in the Act. Unit (h): All regular protessional employees in- cluding employees sponsored under the ('om- prehensive Employment and Training Act. those working in the Institutions. Farm Worker, Employment Law and Senior Citi- zens projects. staff attorneys, law graduates not yet admitted to the bar and social workers; but excluding paraprofessional and office cleri- cal employees, including paralegals. students employed as regular part-time employees. ad- ministrative secretaries, secretaries and book- keepers, litigation coordinators, directing at- torneys. administrative assistant, accountant, librarian/administrative coordinator, adminis- trative bookkeeper. employees of the Native American project. VISTA volunteers, tempo- rary employees, guards and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. [Direction of' Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] 969