Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 249 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE 249
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore, Arch-
diocesan High Schools and Baltimore Archdioce-
san Lay Teachers' Organization , Petitioner. Case
5-RC-8932
January 21, 1975
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Nicholas E.
Karatinos. After the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, and by
direction of the Regional Director for Region 5, this
proceeding was transferred to the Board for decision.
Thereafter the Employer and the Petitioner filed
briefs in support of their respective positions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority 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 affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The Petitioner seeks to represent certain lay
professional employees of the Employer, which owns
the land and buildings of five private, religiously
oriented high schools located within the Archdiocese
of Baltimore, Maryland, which are the subjects of the
petition. The schools are operated by various
religious orders under an agreement with the Arch-
diocese to provide a principal, who is thereafter
approved by the Archdiocese, and to assign members
as teachers . The principal hires the faculty and is
responsible for the school. The high schools are:
Cardinal Gibbons, Baltimore , Maryland, operated
by the Brothers of Mary; Archbishop Keough,
Baltimore, Maryland, operated by the School Sisters
of Notre Dame ; Martin Spalding, Severn, Maryland,
operated by the Sisters of Notre Dame; Bishop
Walsh, Cumberland, Maryland, operated by the
Christian Brothers; and Archbishop Curley, Balti-
more Maryland, operated by the Franciscan Fathers.
Severn is 10 miles south of Baltimore, Cumberland is
160 miles west . Archbishop Keough and Cardinal
Gibbons High Schools are adjacent to one another
and about 10 miles from Archbishop Curley High
School.
The operating budgets of the five schools range
from about $380,000 to more than $670,000, and
total close to $3 million. The schools purchase goods
and services from outside the State of Maryland,
ranging in value from about $30,000 to more than
$90,000 and amounting to a little less than $300,000
for all five. One or more of the schools uses national
testing services; receives financial aid through
Federal programs; has graduates attending colleges
outside the State of Maryland; raises funds across
state lines ; and has students who reside in States
other than Maryland. Thus it is clear that statutory
jurisdiction is present.
The Employer contends that the Board should
nonetheless not exercise its jurisdiction because the
schools are autonomous and individually do not
meet the $1 million jurisdictional standard which the
Board has applied previously to private schools.
Alternatively, the Employer urges that, although the
sole purpose of the schools is not religious education,
religion is taught as an individual subject and the
atmosphere and philosophy of the schools is to
provide an education based on Christian principles.
Contrary to the Employer, we conclude that the
five schools together form an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining and that they
constitute a single enterprise for jurisdictional pur-
poses.
The Employer's administrative organization in-
cludes a division of elementary and secondary
education under a superintendant, directors of
elementary and secondary education, and an Arch-
diocesan board of education with responsibility for
both elementary and secondary education. School
principals are provided by the appropriate religious
order but are approved by the Employer.
The Employer's division of schools employs a
director of instructional personnel who assists all the
schools in the Archdiocese in filling teacher vacan-
cies , including 20 schools termed "private" by the
parties which neither party would include in the unit.
There is, however, no requirement that teachers be
referred or approved by the Archdiocese before they
are hired. The division of schools also prints a school
calendar and a "Handbook of Policies." The schools,
however, may and do establish their own calendars.
The handbook was prepared by a committee includ-
ing lay teachers, principals, and the division of
schools with the participation of the Petitioner and
applies only to the five schools sought in the petition.
Following its preparation it was revised and ap-
proved by the Employer's board of education. The
handbook is used by the principals as a guideline for
policies, wages , and stipends.
Although the Employer and the Petitioner agree
that the Employer has not formally recognized the
216 NLRB No. 54
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petitioner , they have maintained a relationship since
about 1966 and the Employer has negotiated such
matters as the wage scale at the schools and the
individual teachers contract used at four of the five
schools . Similarly, the Employer has exercised
ultimate control over the faculty wage scale. The
teacher's contract published in the handbook lists the
Archdiocese , the superintendent of schools , and the
school principal as parties.
Although the schools establish their own tuitions,
which differ from school to school , the tuition is
reviewed by the Employer and is subject to its
approval . The land and buildings of the schools are
owned by the Employer , which is responsible for
capital improvements , and in the past the Employer
has directly subsidized the five schools , as well as
provided tuition grants to individual pupils at these
schools . The subsidies and tuition grants are now
being phased out and are currently made to only two
of the schools, which the Employer indicated would
also be eliminated in the future . That , however, is
speculative.
In at least one instance the Archdiocese 's superin-
tendent of schools was identified to the State of
Maryland as the individual vested with ultimate
authority for governing and operating one of the five
schools . The Employer has participated in the
resolution of grievances arising between faculty
members and their schools, although assertedly on
an ad hoc basis, and maintains copies of teacher
contracts . Uniform health and pension plans are
available to all employees in the Archdiocese,
although employer contributions are made by the
individual schools.
It is apparent that the Employer maintains a
significant degree of control over the schools, has in
the past negotiated with the Petitioner over terms
and conditions of employment in the unit sought,
represents itself to the public and the State of
Maryland as an integrated enterprise , and may be
considered as such for the purposes of assertion of
the Board 's jurisdiction.
The Archdiocese also contends that the Board
should not assert its jurisdiction because of its
religious character . However, the Board's policy in
the past has been to decline jurisdiction over similar
institutions only when they are completely religious,
not just religiously associated , and the Archdiocese
concedes that instruction is not limited to religious
subjects . That the Archdiocese seeks to provide an
education based on Christian principles does not
lead to a contrary conclusion . Most religiously
associated institutions seek to operate in conformity
with their religious tenets.
In view of the foregoing , and because the Employer
meets the standard we have applied in the past, we
find that it is an employer engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce within the meaning
of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and
9(c)(1) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit
comprising all full-time and regular part-time lay
(nonreligious) professional faculty members , includ-
ing teachers , nurses , librarians , guidance and admin-
istrators ; but excluding religious , office clericals,
maintenance , teachers aides (part-time paraprofes-
sionals), cafeteria workers, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act . The Employer contends that vice
principals , department chairmen, athletic directors,
business managers , and nurses should be excluded
from the unit, while the Petitioner would include
them.
The Petitioner contends that vice principals share a
community of interest with the remainder of the
faculty and, although they may be in charge of a
school in the principal 's absence, they are not
supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Contrary
to the Petitioner , however, we conclude that vice or
assistant principals are supervisors and must be
excluded from the unit . Initially we note that it is
unlikely that the individual in charge in the princi-
pal's absence would not possess supervisory authori-
ty. But our conclusion does not rest on that
reasoning alone . The record establishes that vice
principals have the authority to reprimand teachers
and to insure compliance with school regulations;
they also evaluate the performance of teachers, and
may assign substitute teachers.
Although department chairmen do not possess the
final authority to hire or fire teachers, they are
required to evaluate the performance of teachers and
interview applicants , and make effective recommen-
dations with respect to hiring or retaining teachers.
The record establishes that the principals would not
hire a teacher over the objections of the chairman of
the department in which the proposed faculty
member would teach. It is clear , therefore, that
department chairmen are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act , whom we shall exclude from the
unit.
As the Petitioner asserts, athletic directors are
department chairmen and the same standards are
applicable. However , we note, in addition , that in at
least some instances athletic directors have inde-
pendently hired coaches without prior approval from
the principal and have effectively recommended both
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE 251
the hiring and termination of coaches. They, too, will
be excluded from the unit as supervisors.
With the exception of one part-time nurse at
Cardinal Gibbons High School, the nurses do not
teach courses . Nurses are not on the faculty wage
scale and the availability of faculty fringe benefits to
nurses varies from school to school. In agreement
with the Employer, we conclude that the nurses lack
a sufficient community of interest with the faculty
members to be included in the unit, since their
training, skills, and duties are unrelated to those of
the faculty and their compensation and benefits are
determined on a different basis.
The Petitioner would include, and the Employer
would exclude, business managers . Although the
Petitioner contends that the interests of business
managers are more nearly aligned with those of the
faculty than of the administration , the Employer
contends that they are either supervisors or manage-
rial employees. Business managers assist the school
principals and other administration officials in the
preparation of school budgets and other fiscal
matters, and in some instances have direct responsi-
bility for building maintenance and the operation of
school cafeterias . Some of the business managers also
teach a limited number of courses; one, however, has
a private business , works part time , and teaches no
courses. Business managers are not paid on the
faculty wage scale but based on an individual
arrangement , although they are eligible for the same
benefits . Employees supervised by the business
We leave the setting of the date for the election to the discretion of the
Regional Director in consultation with the parties in view of the special
managers are not professional unit employees and we
might not conclude on that factor alone that their
exclusion from the unit sought here was required, nor
are we convinced that their duties require the
conclusion that they are managerial employees.
However, the combination of their supervisory and,
perhaps, managerial duties with their otherwise
limited community of interest with employees in the
unit persuades us that they lack sufficient common
interests to be included in the unit found appropri-
ate. For that reason we shall exclude them.
We find that the following employees of the
Employer-Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Balti-
more, Archdiocesan High Schools-have a sufficient
community of interest to constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time lay (nonreli-
gious) professional faculty members, including
teachers, librarians, and guidance; but excluding
administrators, religious, office clericals, teachers
aides (part-time paraprofessionals), cafeteria
workers, assistant or vice principals, department
chairmen, business managers , nurses , athletic
directors, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Direction of Election' and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
considerations involved in conducting elections at educational institutions.