State County Employees AFSCME Council 65 (Sibley Center)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1992

306 N.L.R.B. 873 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

873
306 NLRB No. 175
STATE COUNTY EMPLOYEES AFSCME COUNCIL 65 (SIBLEY CENTER)
1 Although the Employer’s petition itself alleges only that the Em-
ployer’s gross revenues were ‘‘approximately’’ $250,000, the Em-
ployer’s supporting letter brief states that the Employer’s gross reve-
nues were in fact ‘‘over’’ $250,000.
2 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority
in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
3 See Alan Short Center, 267 NLRB 886, 887 (1983). See also
Hispanic Federation for Social & Economic Development, 284
NLRB 500 (1987).
4 We assume in this regard that the local suppliers from which the
Employer made its ‘‘indirect’’ out-of-state purchases had received
the materials directly from outside the State. Cf. Better Electric, 129
NLRB 1012 (1960) (such an assumption necessary in order for pur-
chases to constitute indirect inflow under Board’s nonretail jurisdic-
tional standard).
5 The Board’s advisory opinion proceedings under Sec. 102.98(a)
are designed primarily to determine whether an employer’s oper-
ations meet the Board’s ‘‘commerce’’ standards for asserting juris-
diction. Accordingly, the instant Advisory Opinion is not intended
to express any view whether the Board would certify the Union as
representative of the petitioned-for unit under Sec. 9(c) of the Act.
See generally Sec. 101.40(e) of the Board’s Rules.
American Federation of State, County, and Munic-
ipal Employees, Council No. 65 and Sibley
County Developmental Achievement Center.
Case AO–290
March 27, 1992
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, on February 18 and March 5, 1992, respectively,
Sibley County Developmental Achievement Center
(the Employer) filed a Petition for Advisory Opinion
and supporting letter brief requesting a determination
that the Board would assert jurisdiction over it. In per-
tinent part, the petition and brief allege as follows:
1. A proceeding, Case 92–RCE–1280, is currently
pending before the State of Minnesota Bureau of Me-
diation Services (BMS) in which AFSCME, Council
No. 65 (the Union) is requesting certification as exclu-
sive representative of certain employees of the Em-
ployer.
2. The Employer is a private nonprofit organization
which provides day training and habilitation services to
mentally handicapped adults and/or persons with a re-
lated condition.
3. In the past fiscal year, the Employer had gross
revenues of over $250,000 and purchased approxi-
mately $25,000 worth of materials or services directly
or indirectly from outside the State of Minnesota.1
4. The Employer is unaware whether the Union ad-
mits or denies the aforesaid commerce data and BMS
has not made any findings with respect thereto.
5. There are no representation or unfair labor prac-
tice proceedings involving the Employer and the Union
pending before the Board.
Although all parties were served with a copy of the
Petition for Advisory Opinion, no response was filed.
Having duly considered the matter,2 we are of the
opinion that the Board would assert jurisdiction over
the Employer. The Board applies a $250,000 annual-
revenues discretionary jurisdictional standard to organi-
zations that provide social services of the type pro-
vided by the Employer.3 As the Employer’s petition
and brief allege that its gross revenues in the past fis-
cal year were in fact over that amount, the Employer
satisfies that standard. As the petition and brief further
allege that the Employer’s direct or indirect out-of-
state purchases in the same period were approximately
$25,000, the Employer also satisfies the Board’s statu-
tory jurisdictional standards.4
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based on
the foregoing allegations and assumptions, the Board
would assert jurisdiction over the Employer.5