Snohomish County Headstart/Community Action Council

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 12, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 1372 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

Headstart/Community AET/AFL-CIO. Headstart/Community 14(c)(l) 8(a)(l) 18,000. (2), ope ra t i~ns .~ in- 2 Mos.wchuserrs Lobor Relorions Comm~ssion, (1978). I 1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Snohomish County Action Council and Washington Federation of Teach- ers, Case AO-230 March 12, 1981 ADVISORY OPINION A petition was filed on November 10, 1980, by Snohomish County Action Council, herein called the Employer, pursuant to Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, seeking an advisory opinion as to whether the Board, under Section of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, would exercise or decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the Employer's operations. On November 13, 1980, the Washington Federation of Teachers, AFT/ AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, filed a re- sponse objecting to the filing of the petition as a tactic to delay bargaining. Thereafter, on January 22, 1981, the Acting Regional Director for the Board's Region 19 filed a request to intervene1 and motion to dismiss. In pertinent part, the petition, the Union's re- sponse, and the Acting Regional Director's inter- vention allege as follows: I. Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election in Case 19-RC-9641, the Union was certified on March 28, 1980, as the col- lective-bargaining representative of a unit of the Employer's employees. Pending before the Region- al Director are and (5) charges filed on Oc- tober 31, 1980, by the certified Union against the Employer alleging a refusal to meet and bargain in good faith. 2. The Employer, an incorporated nonprofit charitable organization, is a Headstart program en- gaged in providing education and learning opportu- nities to disadvantaged children between the ages of 3 and 5 prior to their entry into the public school system. It receives funding from either Fed- eral, state, or local funding sources and its current budget from the governmental grantors is $3 Despite the parties' stipulation of jurisdiction, the Employer argues against Board jurisdiction because its managerial staff is prevented by law from exer- cising complete control over labor relations poli- cies, which, under Government regulations, resides in a policy committee made up of parents of cur- rently enrolled children, and because its operations are purely local in character and any labor disputes would have a minimal, if any, impact upon inter- state commerce. 3. In his intervention, the Acting Regional Di- rector notes that, while the stipulation of the par- ties sets forth the appropriate monetary require- ments for jurisdiction, no information was obtained on the issue of the degree of the control exercised by exempt governmental entities over the labor re- lations of the Employer. He also points out that the Employer and the Union are not now, and have not been, parties to any proceeding before any agency or court of a State or territory in which the issue of Board jurisdiction has been raised. Accord- ingly, he argues that the petition herein be dis- missed because (1) the Employer is not a party to any collateral proceeding in a State or territory as defined in Section 102.98 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and if the jurisdictional question is to be resolved herein, the Board must of necessity determine the issue of whether the Employer's op- erations are so controlled by its exempt govern- mental grantors that it would not assert jurisdic- tion, and such an issue is not resolvable in an advi- sory opinion proceeding. On the basis of the foregoing, the Board con- cludes that: With one exception, the Board does not render advisory opinions. The single exception is em- bodied in Section 102.98 of the Board's Rules and Regulations which provides: Whenever a party to a proceeding before any agency or court of any State or territory is in doubt whether the Board would assert juris- diction on the basis of its current jurisdictional standards, he may file a petition with the Board for an advisory opinion on whether it would assert jurisdiction on the basis of its current standards. [Emphasis supplied.] Accordingly, since there is no proceeding involv- ing the question of Board jurisdiction pending in any agency or court of any State or territory, the petition does not satisfy the requirements of Sec- tion 102.98 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Further, the Board's advisory opinion proceed- ings are designed primarily to determine questions as to the applicability of the Board's discretionary jurisdictional standards to an employer's "com- merce" The Employer's submission, setting forth the relationship between the Employ- er and its exempt governmental grantors, basically raises the issue whether the Employer shares the exemption of its governmental grantors and there- by precludes the assertion of jurisdiction over the Employer. This issue does not fall within the See 236 NLRB 1357 The request to intervene is hereby granted. and cases cited in fn. 4 254 NLRB No. 171 tendrnent rules.3 di~rnissed.~ Ib~d. jur~sdictional In proceeding. SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEADSTART o f the Board's advisory opinion We shall therefore dismiss the petition for advisory opinion herein. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that, for the reasons set forth above, the petition for an advisory opinion herein be, and it hereby is, Moreover, the issue can be more appropriately litigated the pending unfair labor practice