Carroll Manor Nursing Home

CARROLL MANOR NURSING HOME 67 Carroll Manor Nursing Home and Service Employees International Union, Local 82 AFL-CIO, Petition- er. Case 5-RC-8165 March 2, 1973 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before William I. Schooer, Hearing Officer of the National Labor Relations Board. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the case was transferred to the Board for decision. A brief was filed by the Employer. 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 case,' the Board finds: 1. The Employer is owned and operated by the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, a religious, nonprofit New York corporation of about 400 members with its headquarters in Germantown, New York. Its principal function is providing nursing care for aged and infirm persons. The Carmelite Order maintains and operates institutions in various States as well as Scotland and Ireland, but only the above home located in Hyattsville, Maryland, is involved in the instant proceeding. At its Hyattsville location, the Employer is licensed for nursing care by the State of Maryland to operate a 226-bed home treating four classes of residents: skilled care, domiciliary care, intermediate (long term) nursing care, and intermediate (short term) nursing care. Each patient has his or her individual physician and the only medical attendants on the staff are the registered nurses. In accordance with a health department regulation, the Employer has a "princi- pal physician" who can be called on if a patient's individual physician is unavailable in an emergency. The Employer is a self-supporting institution which derived revenues in 1971 in the amount of approxi- mately $1,040,000. Almost all moneys allocated to salaries, payment on the mortgage, payment to vendors, and upkeep are derived from payments received from patients. It does not receive any funds from the Order or from any charitable organization, although approximately $597,000 is owed on a mortgage held by the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., as well as $40,000 owed to the Archdiocese for a loan. Other than payments to the Employer by residents, which constitute 95 to 98 percent of the annual gross income, the only other source of income is a small amount in bequests. To be eligible for admission, a patient must be at least 60 years of age and must not have an illness such as tuberculosis which would require treatment in a special type of hospital. There are no restrictions because of race, sex, financial status, or religion.2 The administrator of the home is Mother Frances Michael, who acts as Mother Superior to the Sisters at the home and is technically responsible to the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and takes orders from the Mother General of the Carmelite Order. The assistant administrator director of nurses and nursing training, and administrative bookkeeper are all Sisters, as are 11 other persons living and working at the home. The Employer urges the Board to decline to assert jurisdiction over it because it contends the home is not just "religiously associated" but is a completely religious operation. It argues that the Employer's facility is distinguishable from the facility in Drexel Home, Inc., 182 NLRB 1045, because it is funded almost entirely by residents rather than outside groups and is not affiliated with a fundraising organization. We find no merit in these contentions. In Bethany Home for the Aged, 185 NLRB No. 85, jurisdiction was asserted over an extended care facility where the administrator and assistant admin- istrator were both Lutheran ministers who conducted services in accordance with the concepts of the American Lutheran Church. Additionally, that facili- ty provided its residents, most of whom were of the Lutheran faith, with a continuous program of Bible studies, spiritual counseling, and other religious services. In that case, we cited Drexel for its rejection of the argument that an institution's effect on commerce may be measured by its nonprofit status, its title, its religious affiliation, or its occupants. The Employer herein does not conduct religious services or religious studies and does not restrict eligibility to patients of a particular faith. There is no evidence that the home is operated any differently because it is operated by a religious order than it would be if it were operated by a nonprofit organization unaffiliated with any religious organiza- tion. Contrary to the Employer's assertions, the operation is not a completely religious one but is "religiously associated." Accordingly, the principles I After the close of the hearing, a stipulation entered into by the forwarded to the Board. We hereby make this stipulation part of the record Employer and the Petitioner elaborating on the working conditions , duties, 2 There is a nondenominational chapel at the home. and obligations of the nuns was received by the Regional Director and 202 NLRB No. 7 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD set forth in Drexel, Bethany, and Good Samaritan Hospital3 are fully applicable herein and, as the Employer receives in excess `of $100,000 in gross revenues per annum, we find that it will effectuate the .purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Employer's facility. 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. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of "all employees . . . excluding office clerical employees, registered nurses, dieticians, admission clerks, switchboard operators, medical secretaries, nuns, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act." There are 15 Sisters of the Order living and working at the home. This group consists of the four administrative officers, three registered nurses, four licensed practi- cal nurses, one occupational therapist, one recrea- tional therapist, and two nurses aides.4 The Employer concedes that the unit should not include the Sisters in the administrative operations or the Sisters who are registered nurses but contends that the Sisters who are licensed practical nurses and nurses aides should be included because they perform the same functions as the lay personnel. We disagree. The nuns who work at the home are all members of the same Order which owns and operates the home and whose principal function is providing nursing care for aged and infirm persons. Although they work the same hours and shifts as the lay personnel engaged in the same type of work, the Sisters are on a separate payroll and are paid a monthly salary, unlike the other nonsupervisory personnel who are paid biweekly on an hourly basis. The 15 Sisters receive a total of $3,000 per month as salary, which is reflected by bookkeeping entries only, and no actual cash payment is made directly to any of the Sisters. This salary is held in a common pool from which payments are made on behalf of the individual Sisters according to their personal needs, although no Sister has a right to demand or keep her full monthly share of the salary. Each Sister may use up to $20 for incidental personal needs such as cards, stamps, and special lunches, but any money remaining after payment for the general and incidental needs of the Sisters is forwarded monthly to the Mother house in Germantown, New York. A vow of ". . . poverty and obedience according to the rule and constitution of the congregation of the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm" is taken by each of the Sisters. On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the Sisters have special interests resulting in a special employment relationship clearly different from that of other employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit.5 The Employer further objects to the inclusion of the personnel in the dietary department because those employees are mostly part-time workers, many of whom are young students between the ages of 14 and 20, and because they are concerned with only the operations of the kitchen and dining room, cannot venture into other areas of the home, and have no direct connection with the medical aspects of the home. Again we disagree. The dietary department personnel come in frequent contact with the patients in the dining room and are a logical part of the overall unit sought by the Petitioner. Addition- ally, we note that the Employer does not allege, nor does the record indicate, that the part-time employ- ees are employed on other than a regular basis. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit. Therefore, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees employed by the Employer at its Hyattsville, Maryland, location, but excluding office clerical employees, registered nurses, dieti- cians, admission clerks, switchboard operators, medical secretaries, nuns, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] 3 Good Samaritan Hospital a/k/a Good Samaritan Home for the Aged, 185 4 There are 8 other LPN's and 53 other nurses aides who are not Sisters NLRB No 86 5 See Seton Hill College, 201 NLRB No 155.