N.L.R.B. v. Chicago Youth Centers
| Decision Date | 13 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | 79-1429 and 79-1464,Nos. 79-1739,s. 79-1739 |
| Citation | 616 F.2d 1028 |
| Parties | 103 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2881, 88 Lab.Cas. P 11,916 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CHICAGO YOUTH CENTERS, Respondent. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. The CHASE HOUSE, INC., Respondent. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Christopher Katzenbach and Eric G. Moskowitz, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Charles E. Murphy, Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, Chicago, Ill., for Chicago Youth Centers.
Edward Parsons, Chicago, Ill., for Chase House, Inc.
Mark J. Friedman, Chicago, Ill., for YWCA.
Before SWYGERT and TONE, Circuit Judges, and BUA, District Judge. *
These three cases are governed by our recent decision in Lutheran Welfare Services v. NLRB, 607 F.2d 777 (7th Cir. 1979). In that decision the court ruled on both the same Model Cities Headstart program that is involved in the Chicago Youth Centers and Chase House cases at bar and the same Model Cities Title XX Daycare program that is involved in the YWCA case at bar. 1
The decisive factor under Lutheran Welfare is the extent of the public agency's control over the labor relations of the private agency. In the cases before us that control begins with funding, governs job classifications and compensation for each job, and extends to the minutest details of job performance and other terms and conditions of employment. Although theoretically the private agencies in the cases before us might divert funds from their other charitable activities to increase the compensation of employees in the programs, they have chosen not to do so, with de minimis exceptions. As a practical matter all the money for these programs, which are operated separately from the other activities of the private agencies, comes from Model Cities. 2 Because of Model Cities' pervasive control over the labor relations of the private agencies, any bargaining they conducted would in effect be done on behalf of Model Cities. Under such circumstances, Lutheran Welfare holds, Model Cities is a joint employer with the private agency, and the latter shares the former's exemption under § 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(2).
NLRB v. Austin Development Center, Inc., 606 F.2d 785 (7th Cir. 1979), decided six days before Lutheran Welfare, is distinguishable from the latter and from the cases at bar. Austin Development involved different public agencies and a different program. The private agency in that case failed to show "that it lack(ed) effective control over its own labor relations," id. at 789, having argued "only that it lacks control over the wages and benefits of its employees due to budgetary limitations imposed by its dependence on public funds," a fact which the court said "is not the type of control over (the private agency's) labor relations required to invoke the section 2(2) exemption," id. at 789 n.8.
Enforcement is denied in all three cases.
* The Honorable Nicholas J. Bua, District...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. Parents and Friends of Specialized Living Center
...at the Headstart and Daycare centers." Ibid. (citing Mississippi City Lines, 223 N.L.R.B. 11 (1978)). In N.L.R.B. v. Chicago Youth Centers, 616 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir.1980), we reviewed the same Model Cities--CCUO program at issue in Lutheran Welfare Services and reiterated that the "decisive f......
-
Board of Trustees of Memorial Hosp. of Fremont County, Wyo. v. N.L.R.B.
...a joint employer, demonstrating further the error of the Board in exercising jurisdiction in these circumstances. NLRB v. Chicago Youth Centers, 616 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir.); Lutheran Welfare Services of Illinois v. NLRB, 607 F.2d 777, 778 (7th Cir.); Ohio Inns, Inc., supra, 205 NLRB at 528-29;......
-
Truman Medical Center, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...gives City, County or University control over the salaries or other benefits of the employees in question; compare NLRB v. Chicago Youth Centers, 616 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1980) and Lutheran Welfare Services of Ill. v. NLRB, 607 F.2d 777 (7th Cir. 1979). No provision of the contracts between ......
-
Staff Builders Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
...control "extends to the minutest details of job performance and other terms and conditions of employment", NLRB v. Chicago Youth Centers, 616 F.2d 1028, 1029 (7th Cir.1980), see also Lutheran Welfare Services of Illinois v. NLRB, 607 F.2d 777 (7th Cir.1979), then the state will be treated a......