Pius XII School, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 711 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

PIUS XII SCHOOL, INC. 711
Pius XII School, Inc.' and Local 6, International
Federation of Health Professionals , International
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, Petition-
er. Case 3-RC-6282
June 19, 1975
DECISION AND DIREC]CION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed underr-Section 9(c) of the
National, Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held on April 10, 1975, at Albany, New
York, before Hearing Officer Christopher G. Roach.
After the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Acting
Regional Director for Region 3 issued an order
transferring the case to the Board for decision.
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 reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case2 the Board
finds:
1. Pius XII School, Inc., is a New York nonprofit
corporation with headquarters in Chester, New York.
The Employer maintains the following operations, all
of which are located in the State of New York: a
child care institution (Chester campus) in Chester;
group homes and foster homes with a central office
in Middletown; two nonsecured detention homes in
Brooklyn; a family services office in the Bronx; and
the Holy Cross campus-the only facility immediate-
ly involved in this proceeding-in Rhinecliff.
The Employer has a total agency budget of $4.2
million some of which is derived from Federal funds,
such as Medicaid, which are channeled to the
Employer through the State of New York. The
parties stipulated that in the past 12-month period
the Employer has derived revenues in excess of $4
million from its total operations and that in the past
1 The name of the Employer and the Petitioner appear as amended at the
hearing.
2 By letter dated June 6, 1975, Petitioner informed the Board that it was
withdrawing its petition herein "without predjudice [sic]," because at a
meeting between it and the Employer held under the auspices of the New
York State Labor Relations Board an agreement had been reached to have
that agency conduct a consent election. We assume that the Petitioner
intended thereby to address to us a request that we permit it to withdraw its
petition, and we so hereby treat it. We deny the requested withdrawal
inasmuch as: (1) our findings , infra, make it plain that this Board has and
will exercise the jurisdictional authority to resolve the question concerning
218 NLRB No. 163
12-month period the Employer has purchased goods
and/or services indirectly from outside the State of
New York, the value of which goods and/or services
would exceed $5,000.
-At the Holy Cross campus, the Employer conducts
an institutional program for adolescent boys and
girls between the ages of 13 and 18 who have been
termed to be in need of care for a variety of
antisocial activities, including drug and alcohol
abuse. The purpose of the program at Holy Cross is
to teach the residents placed at Holy Cross alterna-
tive ways of living and functioning without the
benefit of reliance on drugs. This is done through
treatment consisting of individual and group psy-
chotherapy, V.U. therapy which is a phase level
system, a token economy, a school, and an infirmary.
The Holy Cross facilities are, located,on 990 acres
of land in Rhinecliff, New York, and consist of an
administration building, two buildings for residents,
a building containing an infirmary, a gymnasium and
field house, a maintenance shop, a residence, and a
residence for staff members.3 Holy Cross presently
has approximately 90 residents . The average length
of stay for each resident is approximately 14 months.
A child is placed at Holy Cross through the Family
Court of the State of New York or by the Depart-
ment of Social Services in the county wherein the
child resides.
Holy Cross provides clothing, education, recrea-
tion, and therapeutic, medical, and physical care. As
noted, Holy Cross has an infirmary which contains
eight beds. There are two physicians, eight nurses, a
psychologist, a therapist, two senior caseworkers, and
caseworkers IV on the Holy Cross staff. In addition,
a dermatologist, a dentist, and a psychiatrist regular-
ly visit Holy Cross. A surgeon and gynecologist are
on call . At times the Holy ' Cross campus receives
residents from state hospitals. All the adolescent
residents of Holy Cross campus attend the Rhinecliff
Union Free School noted above. Treatment teams
composed of both professional and nonprofessional
employees administer to the needs of the residents.
Some of the residents at Holy Cross who have come
from state hospitals receive regular psychoactive
representation of the employees described by the petition , thereby
preempting the authority of the State or any othdr agency to resolve that
question without our consent ; and (2) although Petitioner 's letter requests in
effect that we now abandon our authority to resolve the question
concerning representation, Petitioner offers no reason why that request
should be granted. We also note , inter alga, that we are not even advised as
to the unit or units in which the "consent election" referred to in the letter is
to be conducted.
3 Also located on the Holy Cross grounds is the Rhineclitl 'Union Free
School, a high school operated by its own school board.
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
medication and others receive it on an "as needed"
basis .4
We find, upon the foregoing facts, that the Board
has jurisdiction over the Employer and that it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein. We base that finding, in part, on the
provisions contained in the 1974 amendments to the
Act which expanded the Board's jurisdiction to cover
any "health care institution" without regard to
whether its operations were conducted on a nonpro=
fit, rather than a profit, basis. In Section 2(14) of the
Act, as amended, a "health care institution" is
defined as-
[A]ny, hospital, convalescent hospital, health
maintenance organization, health clinic, nursing
home,, extended care facility, or other institution
devoted to the care of sick, infirm, or aged person.
There can be little question, on the evidence above
set out, -that the Employer's operations at its Holy
Cross campus describe a health care institution.
Thus, the purpose of the Holy Cross campus is to
provide treatment for adolescents who suffer from
alcohol and drug abuse.5 To this end the Holy Cross
campus employs, in addition to its nonprofessional
staff, eight nurses and two physicians, has several
other physicians who regularly visit the campus or
are on call, and, has an infirmary located on its
premises. Because the majority of the residents of the
Holy Cross campus receive some form of treatment,
either in the form of psychotherapy or in the
reception of psychoactive medication, we conclude
that the facility here in question is a health care
institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the
Act.
4 Psychoactive treatment refers to the use of tranquilizers and mood
altering drugs in order to relieve anxiety , tension, or depression rather than
to'relievephysical-symptoms.
5 The Supreme Court in a case as old as Linder v. United States, 268 U.S.
5, 18 (1925), recognized that persons addicted to narcotics "are diseased and
proper subjects for [medical ] treatment."
Because the Employer's gross revenues are in
excess of $4 million, an amount greater than any
currently established Board standard for exercising
our discretionary jurisdiction, - and because the
Employer is engaged in the Board's legal jurisdic-
tion,6 we conclude that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing '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 Petitioner seeks only a unit of all nonpro-
fessional employees employed at the Employer's
Holy Cross campus.-The parties` stipulated that such
a unit is appropriate.7 Accordingly, we find that the
following unit is appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All nonprofessional employees employed at the
Holy Cross campus of Pius XII School, Inc.,
including recreation workers, child care workers
I, child care workers II, token economy coordina-
tor, night child care workers, part-time child care
workers, and treatment coordinators but exclud-
ing directors, senior child care workers day,-senior
child care workers, night, cottage supervisors, and
guards and supervisors-as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
6 An indirect inflow of goods and/or services in excess of $5,000 plainly
establishes the Board's legal jurisdiction . Somerset Manor, Inc., 170 NLRB
1647 (1968).
4 Because Petitioner seeks only a nonprofessional unit we view the
parties' further stipulations as to the possible appropriateness of various
other types of units, not sought by Petitioner, to be irrelevant.