Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 152 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board and Pennsylvania
Social Services Union Local #668 (AFL-CIO,
SEIU) and Urban League of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh
Community Day Care). Case AO- 154
February 21, 1974
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
The petition herein was filed on November 3, 1973,
by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, herein
called the State Board, in conformity with Sections
102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, seeking an Advisory
Opinion concerning its jurisdiction in this matter.
In pertinent part, the petition alleges that:
1. There are presently pending before the State
Board two petitions for representation, involving the
employees of Urban League of Pittsburgh (Pitts-
burgh Community Day Care), herein called the
Employer, filed by Pennsylvania Social Services
Union Local #668, herein called the Union. The
petition in Case PERA-R-3864-W was filed on
August 20, 1973, while the petition in Case PE-
RA-R-4054 was filed on October 17, 1973. The State
Board has taken no definitive action with respect to
the petitions.
2. The Employer, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania, is a nonprofit corporation whose main
function is to provide an equal opportunity project
for preschool-age minority children in the Pittsburgh
community to enable them to compete as equals with
their peers when they enter the public school system.
This function is performed by the Employer through
23 day care centers, involving approximately 345
children between the ages of 3 and 5. The day care
centers provide educational programs for the child-
ren and some health and social services to the
children and their families. The Employer's annual
income from various sources, including the Federal
and state governments, exceeds $1 million.
3. The Union neither admits nor denies the
aforesaid commerce data and the State Board does
I See Peter Mills v Board of Education of :he District of Columbia, 348 F
Supp 866 (D C D C , 1972), in which the court noted and emphasized the
relationship of equal opportunity to public school education
2 Sec 14(c)(I) of the Act provides that "The Board, in its discretion,
may, by rule of decision or by published rules adopted pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act, decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor
dispute involving any class or category of employees, where, in the opinion
of the Board, the effect of such labor dispute on commerce is not
not appear to have made findings with respect
thereto.
4. The Employer contends that it is not subject to
the jurisdiction of the State Board because it is not a
public employer within the meaning of Section
301(1) of the Public Employee Relations Act 195 and
that it has an annual income in excess of $ 1 million.
5. There is no representation or unfair labor
practice proceeding involving the same labor dispute
pending before this Board.
6. Although served with a copy of the petition, no
response as provided by the Board's Rules and
Regulations has been filed by any of the parties.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the
opinion that:
1. The Employer, a nonprofit corporation located
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is mainly engaged in
providing, through the operation of day care centers,
preschool-age minority children with an equal
opportunity project which will enable them to
compete with their peers when they enter public
school. The Employer's operations appear to be in
the nature of a local "head start" program, an
adjunct to the public school system in Pittsburgh.'
2. Notwithstanding the fact that the Employer's
annual income exceed -, $1 million and that funds are
received from the Federal and state governments, the
basic thrust of the Employer' s activities in preparing
preschool-age minority children to compete equally
with their peers after they enter public school is
centered mainly upon the local public school system.
Its activities, therefore, are essentially local in
character and any labor dispute in conjunction
therewith would not have a substantial impact on
interstate commerce. Under all of these circum-
stances, we are of the opinion that pursuant to the
provisions of Section 14(c)(1) 2 of the Act, the Board
should exercise its discretion by refusing to assert
jurisdiction over the operations of the Employer.3
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section
102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations that,
on the allegations presented herein, the Board would
not assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations
with respect to labor disputes cognizable under
Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.
sufficiently substantial to warrant the exercise of itsjurisdiction Provided,
That the Board shall not decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute
over which it would assert jurisdiction under the standards prevailing upon
August 1, 1959"
3 See Center for Urban Education, 189 NLRB 858, where the Board
advised that it would refuse to assert jurisdiction over an employer engaged
in research and development in aid of public school institutions
209 NLRB No. 33