Institutional Food Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 650 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REIAIONS B()ARI)
Institutional Food Services and Teamsters Union
Local No. 115, a/w International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 4-RC-
14558
September 30, 1981
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer John D.
Breese. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, by direction of the Regional
Director for Region 4, this case was transferred to
the National Labor Relations Board for decision.
Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed
briefs.
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 reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, in-
cluding the briefs, the Board finds:
1. Institutional Services, is a nonprofit corpora-
tion, organized under the laws of the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal office lo-
cated at 222 North 17th Street, Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania. It is engaged in the business of procuring
commodities for the religious, educational, and
charitable organizations operated by the Roman
Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The Em-
ployer is a division of Institutional Services, Inc.,
and is engaged in the distribution and preparation
of food, primarily in connection with the operation
of the cafeterias at the secondary schools operated
by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The parties
stipulated that Institutional Services, Inc., annually
purchases goods valued in excess of $50,000 which
originate indirectly from points outside the Com-
monwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Employer first contends that the Supreme
Court's decision in N.L.R.B. v. The Catholic Bishop
of Chicago' precludes our assertion of jurisdiction
herein. We disagree.
440 U.S. 490 (1979).
258 NLRB No. 86
The record establishes that the purpose of the
Employer is not the promulgation of the Roman
Catholic faith, but the commercial services of deli-
vering, preparing, and serving food. The Employer
is not operated directly by the Archdiocese, but
rather by a board of trustees composed of six reli-
gious and six lay persons. The employees are not
required to have any particular religious training or
background, their work is performed in a secular
environment, and they are not directly or indirect-
ly involved in the teaching of a religious philos-
ophy or in any other religiously oriented activity.
In Catholic Bishop, the Court's holding that the
Board could not assert jurisdiction over lay teach-
ers at a church-operated school was derived from
its recognition of the teacher's special role in fulfill-
ing the mission of the church-operated school and
the "consequent serious first amendment issues that
would follow" assertion of jurisdiction. 2 Unlike
Catholic Bishop, the Employer in the instant case is
not a religious institution with a sectarian mission.
More importantly, the employees' work consists
solely of the delivery, preparation, and distribution
of food and is not related to the mission of the
Archdiocese to propagate its religious beliefs.
Thus, the instant case does not involve the entan-
glement of any church-state relationships because
there is no attempt to regulate any sectarian activi-
ty. Therefore, our assertion of jurisdiction does not
raise any question about, or infringe on, any first
amendment guarantees. Accordingly, we find that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employ-
er within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all regular full-
time warehousemen and truckdrivers at the Em-
ployer's warehouse, excluding all other employees.
The Employer contends that the only appropriate
unit is one which includes all nonsupervisory em-
ployees at the warehouse and cafeterias.
The Employer operates a warehouse used to
store food supplies which it then distributes to the
cafeterias at the approximately 30 secondary
schools operated by the Archdiocese.3 The ware-
house is divided into three sections. The warehou-
semen and truckdrivers work in one section, com-
2Id. at 501-504, see also World Evangelism, Inc., 248 NLRB 909
(1980) Lighthousefir ihe Blind of Iouston, 244 NLRB 1144 (1979).
:' The record shows that he Employer also distributes food to some
institutions not connected with he Archdiocese
650
INSTITUTIONAL FOOD SERVICES
monly referred to as the warehouse floor. There,
the warehousemen load and unload the trucks and
store goods with assistance from the truckdrivers,
who also deliver the goods to the cafeterias. The
warehousemen and truckdrivers work 8 hours a
day, 40 hours a week throughout the year, includ-
ing the Christmas and Easter school vacations, are
paid an hourly rate of between $4.50-$7.50, and re-
ceive a 2-week paid vacation and 2 paid personal
days off a year.
A doughnut maker also works in an area of the
warehouse which is sectioned off from the rest of
the warehouse by sinks, pot racks, and an office
wall. Her job duties involve only the production of
doughnuts for a few cafeterias that do not have
doughnut machines, and the only contact between
the doughnut maker and warehousemen and truck-
drivers occurs when the warehousemen enter the
"doughnut area" and take the doughnuts to store
them. She sets her own work schedule, works only
during the school year, and is paid an undisclosed
hourly rate.
The two office clericals, Mary Kerlin and
Vanessa Wright, work in the warehouse offices
which are separately located from the foregoing
two warehouse areas. Mary Kerlin is the ware-
house manager's secretary and also performs the
duties of the receptionist. Vanessa Wright also per-
forms secretarial duties, including taking orders
from the cafeteria managers. They perform none of
the job duties of warehousemen and truckdrivers,
work 40 hours a week year round, and earn a
salary of approximately $110 a week. All ware-
house-located employees are supervised by the
warehouse manager.
The Employer also employs between 400 and
450 cafeteria workers who prepare and serve food
at the 30 cafeterias of the Archdiocese. Cafeteria
workers work approximately 21 hours a week for
the 9-month school year, are paid an hourly rate of
between $3 and $3.41, have no vacation or paid
personal days off, and do not work during Easter
and Christmas school vacations. They are super-
vised by a cafeteria manager who has no supervi-
sory control over the truckdrivers when they de-
liver goods to the cafeteria. Cafeteria workers par-
ticipate in the same health and pension plan as
warehouse employees and the office clericals, but
this appears to be the only benefit shared by all
classifications. There is no interchange between the
warehousemen and drivers and the cafeteria em-
ployees.
Thus, the record shows that the warehousemen
and truckdrivers share virtually no community of
interest with the doughnut maker, the secretaries,
or the cafeteria workers. They work primarily in a
separate area of the warehouse which is geographi-
cally separate from the Employer's cafeterias. They
perform job functions dissimilar to those of the
Employer's other employees for different rates of
pay during different hours of work under working
conditions requiring minimal contact with the Em-
ployer's other employees. Further, they have no in-
terchange with the Employer's other employees.
Although common supervision is exercised over all
warehouse-located employees, that factor is insuffi-
cient to establish a commonality requiring the in-
clusion of all such employees in a unit with the
truckdrivers and warehousemen. Moreover, the
office clerical employees customarily have been ex-
cluded from the truckdrivers' and warehousemen's
unit,4 a unit which traditionally has been found to
be appropriate, 5 and which we find to be appropri-
ate here.
The Employer contends that we should exclude
Rick Greb from the bargaining unit because he is a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We dis-
agree. Greb's time is largely spent performing gen-
eral warehouseman duties such as loading trucks
and distributing job orders to the drivers. There is
no evidence that Greb hires, fires, or disciplines
any warehouse employees or possesses or exercises
any supervisory indicia. We find that Greb is not a
supervisor as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act,
and that he shares a community of interest with the
warehousemen and truckdrivers. Accordingly, we
shall include him in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employ-
ees have a community of interest sufficient to con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
All regular full-time warehouse employees and
truckdrivers employed at the Employer's
warehouse located at 5310 N. 8th Street,
Philadelphia, Pa., excluding all other employ-
ees, office clericals, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
'Arts & Crafts Distributors. Inc.. 132 NLRB 166, 168 (1961).
s Arts Crafts Distributors. supra: The Brescome Distributors Corpora-
tion, 197 NLRB 642 (1972).
651