Labor Relations Commission of Massachusetts

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 1329 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION OF MASSACHUSETTS 1 329
Labor Relations Commission of the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts and Massachusetts Hospital Service , Inc. and Office
Employees International Union , Local 6, AFL-CIO. Case No.
A0-41. September 28, 1962
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed by the Labor Relations Commission of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, herein called State Commission,
for an advisory opinion in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. On
August 1, 1962, Massachusetts Hospital Service, Inc., herein called
the Employer, filed a statement in support of Board jurisdiction
over Massachusetts Hospital Service, Inc. Thereafter, on August 3,
1962, Bernard L. Alpert, Regional Director for the First Region of
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Regional Di-
rector, filed a motion to intervene setting forth jurisdictional facts
developed in his investigation of unfair labor practice charges filed
against the Employer by Office Employees International Union,
Local 6, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, in Case No. 1-CA-3792.
The motion of the Regional Director to intervene is hereby granted.
In pertinent part, the petition, the statement, and the intervention
show as follows :
1. There is presently pending before the State commission, the
agency vested by law with authority to administer the labor relations
law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,' an unfair labor practice
charge, docket No. UP-1936, filed by the Union alleging the Em-
ployer's violation of section 4-1 of the State law. Section 4-1 is the
equivalent to Section 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Thereafter, the Employer moved to dismiss this charge on the ground
that the State commission was without jurisdiction.
2. The Employer, with its place of business in Boston, Massachu-
setts, is a nonprofit organization organized under the special statutes
of the Massachusetts General Laws which regulate nonprofit service
hospitals. The general nature of the Employer's business is health
and accident, medical, hospital and physicians' reimbursement insur-
ance, and it is subject to the Massachusetts insurance laws. Its annual
gross volume of business is $140,000,000 of which $7,300,000 represents
premiums for the coverage of Federal employees in Massachusetts and
$2,600,000 represents premiums received from outside of Massachu-
setts for coverage of servicemen's dependents. In addition, it annu-
ally pays to International Business Machines a rental fee of $654,000
for the use of data-processing equipment which is procured from
outside of Massachusetts.
1 Chapter 150 A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
138 NLRB No. 134.
1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. During the calendar year 1961, the Employer received premiums
in excess of $2,000,000 from Bethlehem Steel, in excess of $3,000,000
from United States Steel and in excess of $72,000 from Pittsburgh
Steel, all of which companies are themselves engaged in interstate
commerce. Of these premiums, $2,200,000 were sent directly from
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. During that year, the Employer paid
approximately $2,000,000, to out-of-State subscribers.
4. Withholding any action in docket No. UP-1936, the proceeding
before it, the State commission filed the instant Petition for an advi-
sory opinion to determine whether this Board would assert or decline
to assert jurisdiction over the Employer "because of the non-profit
factor of this type of business."
5. In contesting the State commission's jurisdiction, the Employer
contends that the Board's jurisdiction has already been exercised by
the Regional Director's dismissal on the merits of the unfair labor
practice charge in Case No. 1-CA-3792 (not published in NLRB vol-
umes) and that the Board has asserted jurisdiction over other non-
profit organizations whose operations are commercial in nature and
otherwise meet the Board's jurisdictional standards.
6. In his intervention, the Regional Director noted that "the dis-
missal [in Case No. 1-CA-3792] was not on jurisdictional grounds
since the investigation indicated, that, in the opinion of the under-
signed, the Board would assert jurisdiction."
7. There is not now any case pending before the Board involving
the Employer herein.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that :
1. The Employer, a nonprofit Massachusetts organization, is en-
gaged in the health and accident, medical, hospital, and physicians'
reimbursement insurance business at Boston, Massachusetts.
2. During 1961 the Employer received insurance premiums in ex-
cess of $50,000 from Bethlehem Steel, United States Steel, and Pitts-
burgh Steel. These premiums represented payment for services to be
performed by the Employer in furnishing, on behalf of the steel com-
panies, insurance protection for their employees. Each of the afore-
said steel companies was itself engaged in commerce and the Board
has previously asserted jurisdiction over each of them.'
3. Where an enterprise engaged in furnishing insurance protection
has performed services valued in excess of $50,000 to employers who
themselves meet the Board's jurisdictional standard, the Board has
found that such enterprise is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction over it. Chain Service Restaurant, etc., 132 NLRB 960.
Apart from its other operations which also affect commerce, the Em-
2 See, e.g., Bethlehem Steel Company, 136 NLRB 1500, 133 NLRB 1347 , 1400; United
States Steel Corporation, 137 NLRB 1372, 127 NLRB 823; Pittsburgh Steel Company,
1 NLRB 256.
MOONEY AIRCRAFT, INC. 1331
plover herein has rendered services in excess of $50,000 to the af ore-
said steel companies over whom the Board has asserted jurisdiction,
and therefore its operations come within the purview of the Chain
Service decision.
4. However, the State commission raises the issue as to whether
status as a nonprofit enterprise would affect the Board's assertion of
jurisdiction over the Employer. Although the Employer is a non-
profit organization, it is engaged in activities of a commercial nature
since it renders its health, medical, and hospital insurance services as
an important part of the insurance business and as an important
adjunct to the steel industry. See Middle Department Association of
Fire Underwriters, 122 NLRB 1115, 1117; Kentucky Rural Electric
Cooperative Corporation, 127 NLRB 887. Further, "it is immaterial
that a nonprofit corporation is motivated by considerations not strictly
commercial where the activities themselves are commercial in nature."
Middle Department Association of Fire Underwriters, supra; Dis-
abled American Veterans, Inc., 112 NLRB 864. Under these circum-
stances, the Board would not decline to assert jurisdiction over the
Employer because of the nonprofit character of its operations.
Accordingly, the parties are therefore advised, under Section 102.103
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on
the facts here present, the commerce operations of the Employer are
such that the Board would assert jurisdiction with respect to 1abor
disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.
Mooney Aircraft, Inc. and Lodge 725, International Association
of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 23-CA-1188 and 23-CA-
1386. October 1, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 14, 1962, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached In-
termediate Report. Thereafter the Respondent and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs. No exceptions were filed by the General Counsel.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel
[Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
138 NLRB No. 136.
662353-63-vol 138-85