The Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind

THE CHICAGO LIGHTHOUSE FOR THE BLIND 249 The Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind and Communi- cations Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 13-RC-13860 June 28, 1976 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND WALTHER On December 15, 1975, the Regional Director for Region 13 issued a Decision and Order in the above- entitled proceeding in which he declined to assert ju- risdiction over the Employer's operations and ac- cordingly dismissed the petition. Thereafter, in ac- cordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for re- view on the ground, inter alia, that there are compel- ling reasons for reconsideration of an important Board rule or policy. Thereafter, the Employer filed an opposition to the request for review. On February 4, 1976, the National Labor Rela- tions Board, by telegraphic order, granted the Petitioner's request for review. Thereafter, the Peti- tioner filed a brief on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this proceeding with respect to the issue under review, including the Petitioner's brief on review, and makes the following finding: The Petitioner sought to represent a unit of all the employees employed at the Employer's workshops located at 1850 West Roosevelt Road and 1717 West 74th Street in Chicago, Illinois. The Regional Direc- tor, relying principally on the Board's decision in Sheltered Workshops of San Diego, Inc.,' concluded that the Employer's activities are intimately connect- ed with educating and training blind persons to en- hance their employment opportunities in the outside community and thus are noncommercial in the gen- erally accepted sense. Accordingly, he declined to as- sert jurisdiction over the Employer. For the following reasons, we find, contrary to the Regional Director, that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act: The facts are undisputed by both parties. Thus, as ' 126 NLRB 961 (1960) found by the Regional Director, the Employer is a nonprofit corporation engaged in serving the blind population of northern Illinois through rehabilitation and social services. These services are accomplished through 15 programs, including an admissions and evaluation program, a vocational placement program the purpose of which is the job placement of blind individuals in the community, and a work adjust- ment and on-the-job training program the purpose of which is to equip blind individuals to move into real job situations. To further the latter purpose, the Em- ployer operates sheltered workshops where blind in- dividuals perform assembly and packaging work which is subcontracted to the workshop.2 The job training lasts approximately 12 weeks. During this time, counselors aid in solving problems and issues that may arise for the blind individual. After having undergone evaluation, work adjustment, and training programs the individual is ready for some type of competitive employment in the community. The workshop offers employment until such opportuni- ties occur. At the West Roosevelt Road location, the Employ- er employs 11 employees, including supply men, ma- terial handlers, an inventory clerk, and janitors, as well as 30 assemblers whom the Employer designates as clients.' At this location, the Employer also houses its administrative and other programs. The 74th Street facility has 14 employees, including supply men, material handlers, an equipment maintenance man, janitors, and order pickers, and approximately 30 clients in assembly. Petitioner seeks a unit com- prising both the employees and clients at these two facilities. The parties have stipulated that this com- bined unit is appropriate, should the Board decide to assert jurisdiction. The Employer's total income for the period July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, was $1,601,733, of which $541,657 was derived directly from subcontracts. The remainder was derived from Government-supported tuition programs, optical aid sales and services, the endowment fund interest, and dividends and contri- butions from private and public sources. For the reasons expressed in The Rhode Island Catholic Orphan Asylum a/k/a St. Aloysius Home, , The Employer has subcontracts with several private employers About 70-80 percent of the volume of work performed at the workshops is for Skil-Craft, Incorporated , an educational toy manufacturer which is a sub- sidiary of the Western Publishing Company In addition, the Employer as- sembles components for Western Electric, assembles plumbing supplies for the Chicago Specialty Company, and packages incense sticks for Scentex, as well as performingjobs for other companies 7 The Employer characterizes most of the employees at the workshops as "clients" "Clients" are those individuals involved in vocational rehabilita- tion As such, they are involved in the direct labor operations , i e, assembly and packaging work Those individuals characterized by the Employer as "employees" are involved in service type work All clients and most of the employees are visually impaired 225 NLRB No. 46 250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 224 NLRB 1344 (1976), recently issued, we will no longer follow Ming Quong Children's Center 4 and de- cline jurisdiction over a nonprofit organization such as this merely on the basis of its charitable function or worthy purpose.' Rather, as we stated in St. Aloy- sius, "The sole basis for asserting jurisdiction over charitable organizations will now be identical with those which are not charitable." Thus, we will classi- fy employers such as these according to what they do-as with any other employer-for the purpose of determining the applicable jurisdictional standard. Here, it is clear that the Employer is, for all intents and purposes, engaged in the nonretail performance of services. As the Employer derived over $350,000 in income from subcontracts for the period July 1, 1974, 4 210 NLRB 899 (1974) 5 Member Fanning concurs in this result for the reasons expressed in his dissenting opinion in Ming Quong and his concurring opinion in Rhode Island Catholic Orphan Asylum We do not reach a different result here merely because all of the "clients" and some of the "employees" are dis- abled to June 30, 1975, for work performed for Skil-Craft, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Western Publishing Co., Inc.,' we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.' Therefore, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, we find that the following unit is appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining with- in the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees and clients of the Employer's workshops located at 1850 West Roosevelt Road and 1717 West 74th Street, Chicago, Illinois, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit- ted from publication.] 6 Skil-Craft is a nationally known manufacturer of toys Moreover, we take official notice of the fact that the Board asserted jurisdiction over the Western Publishing Co, Inc, of Racine, Wisconsin , in Western Publishing Co, Inc, 188 NLRB 245 (1971), finding that it shipped goods in interstate commerce valued in excess of $50,000, to points outside of Wisconsin 7 Siemous Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958)