Camden Regional Legal Services, Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Camden Regional Legal Services, Inc. and Communi- cations Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petition- er. Case 4-RC- 12220 August 8, 1977 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Bruce D. Bagley. Subsequently, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director for Region 4 transferred this case to the Board for decision. 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 proceeding, the Board finds: I. The Employer is a nonprofit New Jersey corporation engaged in providing legal assistance in noncriminal proceedings to indigent clients. It is primarily funded by the Legal Services Corporation, a nonprofit District of Columbia corporation, which disburses congressionally appropriated funds to local recipients such as the Employer. The remainder of its funding comes from the State of New Jersey, various county governments, and private sources such as county bar associations and charities. In Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services, Inc.,' the Board determined that recipients of Legal Services Corporation funds such as the Employer herein would be treated as law firms for jurisdictional purposes and that it would therefore assert jurisdic- tion for the reasons set forth in Foley, Hoag & Eliot.2 Hence, for the reasons stated in both the aforemen- tioned cases, we find the Employer's operations have a substantial impact on interstate commerce, and we shall assert jurisdiction if our monetary jurisdictional standards are satisfied. The Employer has gross annual revenue of $900,000. Each year the Employer purchases goods and services in excess of $50,000 from such national concerns as IBM, Xerox, Bell Telephone, National Telephone Systems, Prudential Insurance Company, i 229 NLRB 1023 (1977). 2 229 NLRB 456 (1977). : Office Employees International Union, Local No. 11 v. N.LR.B., 353 U.S. 313, 318 (1957). See table Ic, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Commerce Department, Census of Selected Service Industries, Legal Services, vol. I, Summary and Subject Statistics, p. 425. and West Publishing Co. Thus, the Board's statutory jurisdiction is clearly established. There remains for our consideration the question of the basis on which we shall exercise our discretion in asserting jurisdiction since we are mindful that we need not assert jurisdiction in all cases dealing with a particular classification of employers.3 We have examined the most recent empirical data collected by the Bureau of the Census4 and the American Bar Foundation 5 and are of the opinion and find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to limit our assertion of jurisdiction over law firms in general and legal assistance programs such as is involved herein to those that receive at least $250,000 in gross annual revenues. We are persuaded that their standard will enable the Board to exercise jurisdiction over that part of the industry which exerts a substantial impact on commerce without unduly burdening the Board's processes by involving it in a multitude of cases whose total economic significance is slight.6 As previously indicated, the Employer's annual gross revenues are $900,000. Accordingly, we find that the Employer's operations affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and, since the gross revenues exceed $250,000, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The parties stipulated and we find that the Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to repre- sent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All paralegal employees, secretaries, reception- ists, clerks, assistant bookkeeper, clerical assis- tant; excluding administrative assistants, book- keeper and office manager. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] 5 See tables 56, American Bar Foundation, The 1971 Lawyer Statistical Report, pp. 10-12(1972). 6 Member Murphy notes that the Board, in asserting jurisdiction over professional activities such as are involved herein, applies the same type of dollar volume tests as are used for commercial establishments such as manufacturing firms and drycleaners. She believes it appropriate to examine future cases to determine whether such a common approach is proper. 231 NLRB No. 47 224