The Chase House, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 611 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

THE CHASE HOUSE, INC. 611
The Chase House, Inc. and Local 372. Child Care Di-
vision, Service Employees International Union.
AFL-CIO. Case 13 -C'A -17974
February 7. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed on August 22, 1978. by Local
372, Child Care Division, Service Emploees Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union.
and duly served on The Chase House, Inc.. herein
called Respondent. the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 13, issued a complaint and notice
of hearing on September 27. 1978, against Respon-
dent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting coin-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended. Copies of the charge. com-
plaint, and notice of hearing before an Administra-
tive Law Judge were duly served on the parties to this
proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that on June 28, 1978, fol-
lowing a Board election in Case 13-RC-13784, the
Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent's emploees
in the unit found appropriate;: and that, commenc-
ing on or about August 14, 1978. and at all times
thereafter, Respondent has refused, and continues to
date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative, although
the Union has requested and is requesting it to do so.
On October 10, 1978, Respondent filed its answer to
the complaint admitting in part, and denying in part,
the allegations in the complaint.
On November 1, 1978, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on November 29.
1978. the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Sumimary
Judgment should not be granted. Respondent filed a
memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment and thereafter counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel filed a response to Respondent's memo-
I Official notice is taken of the retord in the represclll:lll, n pro.h edilil
('.ise 13 R(' 13784. as the term "record" is defined In Sc, 1(2 6S and
102
6 9
ig) of he Board', Rules and Reculations. Series 8. 8. i .lnclnled See
1. I ' E ,ir l..sleme si, //,1 . 166 NlRB 938 1967. enfd 388 1 2d (d83 (4th
('ir. 1968): (odel .4ge Btc'rla' ( . I,7 Nl RB 11 ( 19671 enfd 4 I 2d
26 (5th ('r 1969); Intre l·(pe , v Pnl/,. 2t,9 } Supp s71(1)( \. I . ',
I-.le/t ('rp I4 NIRB 37X 11971, n 378 1967 1 1 h I ( c1 I ( xl 5 .
9(d) ,of the NI R A. a, amended
240 NLRB No. 79
r;andum in opposition to the Motion for Summary
.ideiment.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding. the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint and in its memoran-
duml in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion
for Summary Judgment. Respondent admits the fac-
tual allegations made in the General Counsel's Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment but denies that the unit
is appropriate for collective bargaining, that it is an
emploser engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. and that Margaret
O'Neill has been a supervisor and, or agent of Re-
spondent. Furthermore. Respondent asserts affirma-
tively that Model Cities-CCUO, hereinafter Model
Cities, an agency of the city of Chicago, controls Re-
spondent's labor relations to the extent that it is pre-
cluded from bargaining effectively with the Union:
that findings contained in the underlying representa-
tion proceeding. The Chase House, nc.. 235 NLRB
792 (1978).2 were based on evidence not in the rec-
ord; and that the Board improperly reopened the rec-
ord in that prior representation proceeding.
In her Motion for Summary Judgment. and in her
response to Respondent's memorandum in opposi-
tion to the Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel
for the General Counsel contends that all issues
raised by Respondent were previously litigated and
decided b the Board in the prior representation pro-
ceeding, that the pleadings raise no factual issues li-
tigable in this proceeding. and that summary judg-
ment is proper. We agree.3
Review of the record, including that in the under-
lying representation proceeding. Case 13-RC-13784.
shows that on August 7, 1975. Local 372, Child Care
Division, Service Employees International Union.
AFL-CIO. filed a petition seeking certification as the
collective-hargaining representative of certain em-
ployees of Respondent. Following a hearing, and
pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements
of Procedures. Series 8. as amended, the case was
transferred to the Board for decision. Subsequentl.
\lMeilhers Pncilh and lurph' dIssenling cpaortl', See ,' ( ,,h.,,
toll, , ( 4 ( ,,1 Al4-/ ott .,, D ,' rt,.l ,t I . bderal Pt m,,/t. 235
N 'B 77(. 1978). lelilhlcrs \M rph. mnl Pencie llj d sc linc ocpl.itel . id
) ltllw, 11 ,,,i .l'- ( 1l1l1 l 4-~,1 l ...I o/ If , ,/l tl (i l. 215 \i [ RB1
788 1 9'8) \ llembher Pencil,, .Ilad Murphl dlsenlige sipa.r.lcl
In sievs of the fact that Respendenl admiT ii i .ans.cr ii le oni-
pl.inlt Ithi snice ,1 or abohut Auust 14 14978 It hiis iled arid refused to]
hbr in llcJllcoiels lI u ijhe Itc i 1/it 1 . ll C, C the lI.I-hlgiilllllllg rcprcenlal-
IIC , i cliiloN \tcs. sAc agree li I he (ICiLeIr ( Insscl's I Lcrll,,ll tha.I the
I" LiMIC \l.l r1.lrei ()'NC11IIs ll upcr'ilol ' I .ll (L , I1' 1 t \ cordim lllgs, 'Ic finl
It llill C 'Is.I
·
r in c O [j hai ll l 1. 'ti fo ( lf he O111illlp iinl
T H E C H A S E H O U S E . I N C . 6 !.!.
-
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board, sua sol,. remanded this case to the Re-
gion to reopen the record. 4 A further hearing was
held on December 16, 1976, and the parties thereaf-
ter filed additional briefs.
Following the second hearing. the Board. on April
7. 1978, issued a Decision and Direction of F[lec-
tions,- concluding that the designated unit was ap-
propriate for collective bargaining, that Respon-
dent's relationship with the city of Chicago did not
deprive the Board of jurisdiction, and that the city of
Chicago, acting through Model Cities, does not con-
trol the labor relations at Respondent's Head Start
facilities to such a degree as to preclude Respondent
from engaging in a meaningful collective relationship
with the Petitioner.
The designated unit was also found to be appropri-
ate for purposes of collective bargaining in voting
groups (a) and (b) as set forth in the Board's Deci-
sion and Direction of Elections of April 7 1978. as
modified by the Board's Order Amending Decision
and Direction of Elections of April 24. 1978. There-
after, on June 20, 1978, an election was held. The
tally of ballots for voting group (a) showed that a
majority of the professional employees wished to be
included in a unit of nonprofessionals. with three em-
ployees voting for inclusion and one employee voting
against inclusion in the nonprofessional unit. The tal-
ly of ballots for voting group (a) and (b) eflected
that a majority of valid votes were cast for the
Union, with 18 employees voting for the Petitioner
and 2 employees voting against.
On June 28, 1978. the Regional Director issued a
Certification of Representative certifying the Union
as the representative of Respondent's employees in
the unit found appropriate by the Board in its Deci-
sion and Direction of Elections of April 7. 1978. No
objections to conduct affecting the results of the elec-
tion were filed.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or special
circumstances a respondent in a proceeding alleging
a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to reliti-
gate issues which were or could have been litigated in
a prior representation proceeding.'
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceeding
were or could have been litigated in the prior repre-
sentation proceeding, and Respondent does not offer
to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or pre-
viously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege that
This case was remanded long with ( il l Bsholl ,ir ( hli l I ( ,]
ration Sole, Departmn r i t lldrll Prtal,tlll,. .lnd ) , i11g [1 ,dplld ' ( /..t,,un;
.1ssyoniaon of Vfetrpoulthlan ( nitll ,, fn. 2. q,,,<
235 NI.RB 792.
See Pirrslrgh Plru' (Glas ( \ 1, IR B . 313 1 .S 14. 162 141)
Rules and Regul;lions of the Board. Scar 1 02 671f) anl 112 )(nc }
an\ special circumstances exist herein which would
require the Board to reexamine the decision made in
the representation proceeding. We therefore find that
Respondent has not raised any issue which is proper-
I, litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding.
Accordingly. we grant the Motion for Summary
Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINI)IN(;S (): F(1i
I It Bt SINiSS 01O RISPONL)tI.N
The record shows that The Chase House, Inc., is
an Illinois nonprofit corporation engaged in the op-
eration of three ead Start centers and a day care
center. Respondent had gross annual revenues in ex-
cess of $250,000 and purchased and received goods
and services valued in excess of $20,000 directly and
indirectly from sources located outside the State of
Illinois.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is. and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
11 111 I.ABOR (RGA;^NIZAION INVOLV[)
Local 372. Child Care Division, Service Employees
International Union. AFL CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
IIl I t1i[ I NAIR ABOR PRAC(TICES
A. The Repreventaltion Proceeding
I. The unit
The following employees of Respondent constitute
a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All teachers, assistant teachers, teacher aides,
social service, food service and clerical employ-
ees employed at the Employer's child care cen-
ters located at 211 South Ashland Avenue. 4550
North Hermitage Avenue, 48 North Hoyne Ave-
nue, and 1201 West Illth Place, Chicago, Illi-
nois, excluding all managerial employees, super-
visors, and guards as defined in the Act.
THE CHASE HOUSE, INC. 613
2. The certification
On June 20. 1978. a ma orit? of the employees of
Respondent in said unit. in a secret-hballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional I)i-
rector for Region 13. designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with Respondent. The Union was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employces
in said unit on June 28. 1978. and the Union contiln-
ues to be such exclusive representative within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Rc.vpondenl'Sv Rtlioall
Commencing on or about August 14. 1978. and at
all times thereater. the Union has requested Respon-
dent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusl\e
collective-bargaining representative of all the m-
ployees in the above-described unit. Commencing on
or about August 14. 1978. and continuing at all times
thereafter to date. Respondent has refused, and con-
tinues to refuse. to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the exclusive representative for collective
bargaining of all employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
August 14, 1978, and at all times thereafter, refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the eclu-
sive representative of the employees in the appropri-
ate unit, and that, by such refusal. Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
IV. IHE if:F-ECL1 OFI tlL I NI AIR I. \B()R PR \( 1 ( I15 1t I)
( OM1L:R(1
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section I. above, have a close, inti-
mate. and substantial relationship to trade. traffic.
and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V 1111 RMIl)
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meain-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act. we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom. and, upon
request. bargain collectively with the .Union as the
exclusive representative of all emplo\ees in the ap-
propriate unit, and. if an understanding is reached.
embody such understandingi ill a signed agreerment.
In order to insure that the employees in thile appro-
priate unllit will be accorded the services of their se-
lected barga;ining agent for the period provided by
law. we shall construe the intitial period of certificia-
tion as beginning on the date Respondent commenec-
es to bargain ill good faith with the Lnion itas the
recognized bargaining representative in the appropri-
ate unit. See IMar-Jac Poultryr C(ompanv, Inc.. 136
N LR B 785 ( 1962): (ommerce Complant d h a Lamzar
ltotul. 140 NLRB 226. 229 (1962). enfd. 328 F.2d 600
(5th Cir. 1964). cert. denied 379 U.S. 817: Burnret
( ')n strttion (C)em/pan. 149 N LRB 1419, 1421 (1964).
enfd. 350 .2d 57 (lOth Cir. 1965).
The Board. upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
Co(m ()N(I SlONS ()o L w
1. Ihe (Chase [louse. Inc.. is an eploxer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Local 372. Child Care Division. Service Em-
ployees International Union. AFL-CIO. is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. All teachers. assistant teachers. teacher aides.
social service, food service and clerical employees
emploed at the Employer's child care centers locat-
ed at 21 I South Ashland Avenue. 4550 North Hermi-
tage Avenue. 48 North Hoyne Avenue. and 1201
West I lth Place, Chicago. Illinois. excluding all
managerial employees. supervisors and guards as de-
fined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since June 28. 1978, the above-named labor or-
ganization has been and now is the certified and ex-
clusive representative of all employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. By refusing on or about August i4. 1978. and at
all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all the employees of Re-
spondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
'. B the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained. and coerced and is
interfering withll restraining. and coercing, employees
in the exercise of the rights guaraniteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act. and hereb, has engaged in allnd is
engagingil in unfair lbor practices ithin the mean iLng
of Section 8t)( )1 of te Act.
THE CHASE HOUSE. INC. . . .
614 I>:('ISIONS OF NATIONA. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. 'Ihe aforesaid unfair labor practices are iunfalir
labor practices affecting comlmerce within the mea;n-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORL)IR
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act. as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
The Chase Hlouse. Inc., Chicago. Illinois, its officers.
agents, successors, and assigns. shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concernine
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment with ocal 372. (Child ('are
Division, Service Employees International nion,
AFL ('10, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay., wages, hours. and other terms
and conditions of employment. and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its child care centers located at 211
South Ashland Avenue, 4550 North Hermitage Ave-
nue, 48 North Hoyne Avenue, and 1201 West I l Ith
Place, Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
13, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to emplo-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced. or covered by any other mate-
rial.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13. in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order.
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
ME 1MB R PNi, i.o.() dissenting:
I would not grant the General Counsel's Motion
for Summary Judgment for the reasons stated in my
dissenting opinion ill the underlying representation
casc, 1/lc ('hll Housc, Inc.. 235 NLRB 792 (1978),
Mi 11 1 R MI R'lIl dissenting:
For the reasons set forth in my dissents in Catholic'
Bishu o (hicao, 235 NLRB 776 (1978). and 7he
('lha.'C ottue, Inc., 235 NLRB 792 (1978), 1 would
not assert jurisdiction over Respondent and therefore
would not grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.
In tl c¢ei, thlat i, O)der s elnfori,,.cd h\ ailudgmncnl of a Inlted States
( ll ,1 \pl',cal. Ithe l d, in hec i., ce reading "Posted bh Order of the
Ngth.on I bo l R .l it ,,ons Boaird" hl read P,,ted ursuant to a Judg-
1.lcn the atled Stite ( ourt of Appeals iltforcijig an Order f the
N it11 I [1thsl Rc ltllis ioard
APPENDIX
NoiI I(' To E'.'ioYI:i-S
Po()SL I) it) ORDIR ()I 1i1
Ni;\I()NAI. LABOR() R.IAIIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Wi IIl sol refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay. wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Local
372, hild ('are Division. Service Employees In-
ternational Union. AFL -CIO as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargain-
ing unit described below.
WI will. ol in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
Wi wvi. upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive represen-
tative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below, with respect to rates of pay, wag-
es, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is
reached. embody such understanding in a signed
atgreement. The bargaining unit is:
All teachers, assistant teachers. teacher
aides, social service, food service and clerical
employees employed at the Employer's child
care centers located at 211 South Ashland Av-
enue. 4550 North Hermitage Avenue, 48
North Iloyne Avenue, and 1201 West Illth
Place. Chicago Illinois. excluding all manage-
rial employees. supervisors. and guards as de-
fined in the Act.
1 I ( .XSl. ilot sI. IsN