Long Beach Youth Center, Inc., 648 (1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Long Beach Youth Center, Inc., a/k/a Long Beach Youth Home (formerly Trailback, Inc.) and Hospital and Service Employees Union, Local 399,

Service Employees International Union, AFLCIO. Cases 21-CA-13639 and 21-RC-14169

July 6, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER

BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND WALTHER

On May 7, 1975, Hospital and Service Employees Union, Local 399, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Union, filed a petition for an election in Case 21-RC-14169.

Shortly thereafter, on May 14, 1975, the Union filed a charge against Trailback, Inc. (now Long Beach Youth Center, Inc., a/k/a Long Beach Youth Home), herein referTed to as either Respondent or the Employer, alleging various violations of the Act.

A hearing was held on the issues raised by the Union's election petition and, on November 19, 1975, the Board directed an election in two appropriate units-Unit A and Unit B.' An election was conducted in Unit A on December 19, 1975, and, as the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Board, on May 7, 1976, issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election and Order Directing Hearing on the challenged ballots.2

On May 20, 1976, the Regional Director issued an order consolidating the representation case with the unfair labor practice case and directed a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

The complaint, which issued April 9, 1976, alleges that Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In its answer, Respondent admits some of the allegations of the complaint but denies the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.

On September 24 and 28, 1976, the parties executed a stipulation of facts by which they waived a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge and the issuance of an Administrative Law Judge's decision, ' The Board's Decision and Direction of Elections is set out at 221

NLRB 527 (1975).

2 Not reported in bound volumes of Board decisions.

3 After the complaint in this case issued, Trailback, Inc., underwent corporate reorganization between on or about July 3. and November 17, 1975, and became Long Beach Youth Center, Inc. At the same time Respondent changed its function somewhat and became a children's youth home providing board, care, and supervision for male adolescents. Long Beach Youth Center. Inc., though not named in the complaint, executed the stipulation of facts and the motion to transfer proceedings to the Board as a Respondent, and is but an alter ego of Trailback, Inc. Since it is clear that both Trailback, Inc., and Long Beach Youth Center, Inc., satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Act (see The Rhode Island Catholic Orphan Asylum, a/k/a St. Aloysius Home, 224 NLRB 1344 (1976), and Boys and 230 NLRB No. 90 and agreed to submit the case to the National Labor Relations Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order based upon a record consisting of the charges, the complaint and notice of hearing, the answer, the stipulation of facts with exhibits attached thereto, and the record in Case 21-RC-14169 of which the Board may take judicial notice.

On November 29, 1976, the Board accepted the parties' stipulation of facts and ordered that the proceedings be transferred to the Board, granting the parties time for the filing of briefs. Thereafter,

General Counsel, the Union, and Respondent filed briefs in support of their respective positions.

Pursuant to the provisions of the 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.

Upon the basis of the stipulation of facts, the briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. JURISDICTION Respondent Long Beach Youth Center, Inc., a/k/a Long Beach Youth Home, is a California nonprofit charitable corporation which until approximately October 1975 operated a nonprofit residential treatment facility for the care and treatment of emotionally disturbed adolescents with drug-related problems.

    As found by the Board in its decision at 221 NLRB 527 (1975), Respondent has been at all times material herein a health care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. In the normal course of its business operations, Respondent derives annual gross revenues of approximately $420,000 from agencies of the county of Los Angeles, California.

    We therefore find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.3

    Girls Aid Society of San Diego, Ltd., 224 NLRB 1614 (1976)), Long Beach Youth Center, Inc., will be named as Respondent in this proceeding.

    In finding that Respondent Long Beach Youth Center, Inc., meets the Board's jurisdictional requirements, Member Murphy deems it unnecessary to rely on the above cases, in which she dissented. Rather, she would assert jurisdiction over Respondent Long Beach on the ground that it is the alter ego of Respondent Trailback, Inc., a health care institution, over which the Board asserted jurisdiction in the underlying representation proceeding, reported at 221 NLRB 527. The fact that Respondent Trailback underwent corporate reorganization after the unfair labor practice complaint herein issued, and that it now operates Respondent Long Beach Youth Center,

    Inc., cannot and does not exculpate it from responsibility for unfair labor practices committed prior to such reorganization and name change.

    648

    LONG BEACH YOUTH HOME II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties stipulated and we find that Hospital and Service Employees Union, Local 399, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

    1. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Stipulated Facts Respondent, at all times material herein, has operated a private, nonprofit, residential treatment facility whose function is the care and treatment of emotionally disturbed adolescents with drug-related problems. Respondent's treatment program consists of providing 24-hour skilled nursing care and medical, psychiatric, psychological, and social work services for its residents. Among Respondent's employees are nurses, maintenance personnel, and child care counselors whose function is to act as surrogate parents for the residents and supervise their daily living situation.

      On April 30, 1975, employees David Eastland,

      Stephen Wolinski, and William Bartlett met at Respondent's premises and planned a work stoppage, commonly referred to as a 'sick-in,' in protest of working conditions at the Employer's facility.

      They discussed grievances they had with Respondent, including their desires for changes in the personnel policies to include additional fringe benefits for employees and adequate break periods, and made plans to apply for membership in the Union.

      On May 1, 1975, at 7:15 a.m., all five child care counselors scheduled for the morning shift called in sick prior to the time they were to report for duty.

      During the ensuing 24-hour period, a total of 17 employees4 ceased to work concertedly to protest working conditions. The Union was not responsible for, nor did it encourage, the work stoppage. No notice of the work stoppage was given to Respondent.

      Also on May 1, all of these 17 employees met to draw up a list of written demands for presentation to Respondent's board of directors. During this meeting, all 17 employees signed authorization cards for the Union.

      On May 2, Theodore H. Hampton, Respondent's program coordinator and a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, met with the employees and was presented with the list of written demands. The following day, employees Heikkila, Bartlett, and 4 These 17employees were William F. Bartlett, Rodney Chaplin. Betsy Chattaway, Lester Davenport, David C. Eastland, John W. Gogel. Jr.,

      Danny L. Harrison, Wayne E. Heikkila, Lonnie Henley. John E. Lalich, Jr.,

      Duane A. Leet, Arthur J. Moreau. Lawrence A. Motley, David Plouff, Alan Seaman, Dexter S. Umekubo, and Stephen H. Wolinsky.

      Eastland met with an administrative representative of Respondent's board of directors, Harold Ward, to discuss the proposed demands.

      Between May 5 and 11, 1975, the 17 employees ended their work stoppage and returned to Respondent's employ. 5

      On May 9 and 11, 1975, however,

      Respondent sent telegrams to all of the 17 employees who had participated in the work stoppage telling them that their employment was terminated. The employees were terminated because they had ceased working on May 1, 1975, and had...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT