Board of Jewish Education of Greater Washington, D.C.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 1037 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

BOARD OF JEWISH EDUCATION 1037
Board of Jewish Education of Greater Washington,
D.C. and Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 5-RC-8642
May 29, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On September 14, 1973, the Regional Director for
Region 5 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found
that the Board has plenary jurisdiction over the
Employer, noting that it is an educational institution,
a class over which the Board asserts jurisdiction.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions , Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a
timely request for review of the Regional Director's
decision on grounds that the Board has never
heretofore asserted jurisdiction, plenary or limited,
over a nonprofit religious organization engaged in
small-scale , noncommercial activities, such as the
Employer and it would not effectuate the policies of
the Act to direct an election herein.
On October 5, 1973, the Board, by telegraphic
order, granted the request for review and stayed the
election pending decision on review. The Employer
thereafter filed a brief on review.
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 considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review,
including the Employer's brief on review, and finds
that no question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Regional Director found since the Board
announced in Cornell University, 183 NLRB, that it
would no longer decline to assert jurisdiction over
educational institutions as a class and since the
Employer's primary goal is the furtherance of
education, he concluded that the Employer is subject
to the Board's jurisdiction. He further finds that
I See , e g , Assoc tatton of Hebrew Teachers of Metropolitan Detroit, etc
(United Hebrew Schools of Metropolitan Detroit), 210 NLRB No 132
Although the Board does assert "plenary" jurisdiction within the District of
Columbia, this refers to the Board's policy of asserting junsdiction over an
employer, otherwise in commerce, without reference to its dollar volume of
business It does not reflect an intention by the Board to dispense with all
while the Employer's revenue is insufficient to bring
it within the jurisdictional minimum for educational
institutions, it is sufficient to assert plenary jurisdic-
tion since the Employer is located in the District of
Columbia. The Employer contends that it is a
nonprofit religious organization engaged in small-
scale, noncommercial activities and the Board has
never asserted jurisdiction, plenary or limited, over
such organizations. We agree.
The Employer is a nonprofit organization, incorpo-
rated under the laws of the District of Columbia and
operated for the sole purpose of furthering Jewish
education among the Jewish population in the
Greater Washington area. To accomplish this object,
the Employer provides Jewish religious training to
high school age students and trains teachers in
Judaism and Hebraic study. The faculty consists
mainly of people with other employment, many
being university teachers, lawyers, and other profes-
sionals who contract with the Employer to teach on
weekends or in the evenings. The Employer has no
facilities of its own; therefore this training is
conducted in approximately 40 synagogues through-
out the Greater Washington area. The Employer's
total yearly budget is approximately $300,000 with
between 70 and 75 percent contributed by the United
Jewish Appeal. The balance is obtained from
institutions for whom the Employer trains teachers
and a modest tuition paid by the students.
Based on the entire record in this proceeding, we
find that the Employer is a nonprofit religiously
orientated institution whose activities are noncom-
mercial in nature and are intimately connected with
the religious activities of that institution. We did not
intend, in Cornell, to adopt a policy of asserting
jurisdiction over institutions primarily religious and
noncommercial in character and purpose, whose
educational endeavors are limited essentially to
furthering and nurturing their religious beliefs. In our
opinion, it would not effectuate the policies of the
Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction over such an
institution. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the peti-
tion.'
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
other inquiries as to the nature of an employer's operations , in this case
whether it is a member of a class of employers over which the Board will not
assert jurisdiction Compare , e.g., Herbert Harvey, Inc. 171 NLRB 238,
wherein the Board inquired into the relationship of the employer, within the
District of Columbia, to an exempt institution , the World Bank
210 NLRB No. 150