Beers, Clifford W., Guidance Clinic, Inc.

BEERS GUIDANCE CLINIC, INC. Clifford W. Beers Guidance Clinic, Inc. and Local 1303-71 of Council #4, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL- CIO. Case AO-240 February 2, 1983 ADVISORY OPINION A petition and a brief in support thereof were filed on October 21 and November 8, 1982, respec- tively, by Clifford W. Beers Guidance Clinic, Inc., herein called the Employer, for an advisory opin- ion, in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, seeking to deter- mine whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer. On November 15, 1982, Local 1303-71 of Council #4, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL- CIO, herein called the Union, filed a brief in oppo- sition. Subsequently, the Employer filed a reply brief. In pertinent part, the Employer's petition and supporting brief and the Union's opposition brief allege as follows: (1) On February 28, 1973, the Union was certi- fied, Case E-2358, by the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, herein called the State Board, as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the Employer. On October 4, 1982, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the State Board alleging that the Employer, without negotiating to impasse, unilaterally imple- mented changes in wages and other conditions of employment. This charge is currently pending before the State Board, Case U-7484. (2) The Employer is a private, nonprofit Con- necticut corporation engaged in providing a wide range of psychiatric, diagnostic, and psychothera- peutic services to children with emotional prob- lems and their families. The Employer services largely through outpatient and community out- reach programs. (3) During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1982, the Employer received revenues totaling approxi- mately $1 million which included $500,000 in state and municipal grants and contributions, $60,000 in Federal Social Security Act reimbursements (Title XIX), $24,000 in grant funds from the National Center for Disease Control, $155,000 in United Way grants, and at least $6,000 in payments from out-of-state insurance companies. During the same period, the Employer purchased services, supplies, and other goods valued in excess of $100,000, which purchases were made either directly or indi- rectly from suppliers located outside the State of Connecticut. (4) The Union neither admits nor denies the aforesaid commerce data and alleges that it has been unable to verify the Employer's data. The State Board has made no findings with respect thereto. (5) There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same labor dis- pute pending before this Board. (6) Although served with a copy of the petition, no response, as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations, has been filed by the State Board. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that: 1. The Employer is a private, nonprofit Con- necticut corporation engaged in providing a wide range of psychiatric, diagnostic, and psychothera- peutic services to children with emotional prob- lems and their families. 2. The thrust of the Union's brief in opposition to the petition herein is that, as it is the Board's policy to extend comity to state-run elections and to prohibit forum shopping by employers, the Em- ployer's motivation should be considered and the petition dismissed.' The basic issue presented by the Union is whether the Board should advise that the State Board is not precluded, as a matter of comity, from processing to a final conclusion the unfair labor practice proceeding now before it at a time when the State Board has jurisdiction over the Employer. This issue does not fall within the intendment of the Board's advisory opinion rules.2 The Board's advisory opinion proceedings "are de- signed primarily to determine questions of jurisdic- tion by application of the Board's discretionary standards to the 'commerce' operations of an em- ployer."3 As the Employer received revenues to- taling approximately S1 million, and it purchased services, supplies, and other goods valued in excess of $100,000, which purchases were made either di- rectly or indirectly from suppliers out of State, we find that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.' Accordingly, the parties are advised that, under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, on the allegations pre- ' In its brief the Union alleges that, since the Employer has been unionized for almost 10 years and since there has been no change in cir- cumstances to justify the Employer's actions, the only reason for the Em- ployer's petition for advisory opinion is to justify its refusal to bargain with the Union and to attempt to force an election by this Board. In its reply brief, the Employer denies that it is seeking an election; on the con- trary, it specifically disclaims having evidence that a question concerning representation exists, and affirms that the Union is the exclusive collec- tive-bargaining representative of its employees. I District 65. Wholesale, Retail, Office & Processing Union, 186 NLRB 791 (1970). I Ibid. ' Child and Family Service of Springfield, Inc., 220 NLRB 37 (1975). 266 NLRB No. 16 89 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sented herein, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and ' Contrary to the implication contained in the Union's brief, by enter- 10 of the Act.5 taininS thi petition and advising of its probable jurisdiction, the Board in no way expresses an opinion as to what resolution it would make of any unfair labor practice charge, or petition for an election, brought before it.