Trustees of the Corcoran Gallery of Art

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 565 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

TRUSTEES OF THE CORCORAN GALLERY OF ART 565
Trustees of the Corcoran Gallery of Art 1 and Interna-
tional Union, United Plant Guard Workers of
America, Petitioner. Case 5-RC-7288
November 16, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer William I. Shooer of
the National Labor Relations Board. Following the
hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, the case was transferred to the Board for
decision. The Petitioner filed a brief. A motion to
dismiss and a brief in support thereof was filed by the
Employer.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is a private nonprofit art gallery
which was created by the deed of William W.
Corcoran to James M. Carlisle recorded May 18,
1869, and was incorporated by Act of Congress in
1870. The deed provides for the establishment of an
institution in Washington, D.C., to be. "dedicated to
Art," and used solely for the purpose of encouraging
American genius, in the production and preservation
of works pertaining to the "Fine Arts." There are 9
trustees, and directly under them, a board of
governors with 29 members, who govern the
Employer.2 The deed also provides for the perpetual
establishment and maintenance of a public gallery
and museum for the promotion and encouragement
of the arts of painting and sculpture, and the fine arts
generally, and with such regulations and limitations
as the board of trustees may prescribe.
The Employer operates a gallery and an art school
in a single building at 17th Street and New York
Avenue in Washington, D.C. A collection of 18th and
19th century American art dedicated by William
1 The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Employer is supported entirely by private citizens and is assisted
in its operation by certain groups and committees , i.e., Friends of Corcoran
Gallery of Art, Association of the Corcoran Gallery of Art, the Women's
Committee , and the National Committee for the Corcoran. Their primary
Wilson Corcoran is on exhibit in the gallery. Also on
exhibit is the Clark collection of 20th century
American artists.3 The Employer's art collection is
worth approximately $35 million. In addition, Em-
ployer also owns and operates the Corcoran Gallery
Dupont Center Workshop. The Dupont Workshop is
under the direction of a graphic art specialist who
works with other artists in reproducing fine graphic
prints. For a brief period of time, the Employer
operated a branch of the School of Art in Columbia,
Maryland. However, such operation was terminated
as of June 1970. The Employer employs approximate-
ly 129 persons of whom 43 are staff of the gallery, 48
staff and faculty in the School of Art, 1 person at the
Dupont Workshop, 21 maintenance employees, and
16 guards and watchmen.
The gallery is open Tuesday ; through Sunday.
Admission is free on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, but
a 50-cent admission fee is charged from Thursday
through Sunday. Other sources. of income for the
Employer include a sales desk located in the gallery
where reproductions of paintings, postcards, small art
objects, and ceramics are sold; an art rental service
which allows members and certain other individuals
to rent paintings at a modest rental fee with a view to
purchasing the painting in which case the Employer
receives a 10-percent commission ; income from the
Employer's approximately $3,600,000 endowment
which is invested in real estate notes, treasury notes
and corporate bonds, and tuitions from the School of
Art.
The Corcoran School of Art, founded in 1897,
consists of three floors of studios in the north section
of the gallery. Facilities include an art library, an
auditorium, and a gallery for exhibition of student
and faculty work. Faculty members are paid for their
services and they are supplemented by visiting artists
from this country and abroad. Although the school is
not an accredited institution, students are required to
pay tuition and they must be graduated from
secondary school. The school grants the Corcoran
School of Art Diploma upon completion of 4 years of
study. Diplomas are offered in ceramics , communica-
tions design, graphics, painting and sculpture. Also
the Corcoran School of Art Certificate is an interme-
diary award granted upon completion of 2 years of
study. The school offers a visual communications
course that provides training for those students who
may go into studios as designers and commercial
artists. Classes are conducted during the day and in
the evening, as well as on Saturday. In addition to the
purpose is to raise money to purchase works of art. There are
approximately 4,500 to 5,000 memberships which also provide financial
support.
% An addition designated as the W. A. Clark wing to the gallery was
built in 1928 to dedicate and house the works of art owned by W. A. Clark.
186 NLRB No. 83
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fall and spring semesters, there is a summer semester,
and a 4-week summer program in the Corcoran
School of Art Abroad, a course that includes studio
work at Leeds College of Art in England.
Of the students who attend the school, a majority
come from the District of Columbia, Virginia, and
Maryland. During the academic year 1969-1970,
there were 33 faculty members in the day and evening
school and 15 in the Saturday school. There were 10
employees who worked in administrative tasks, 3 on
the janitorial staff, and I guard who worked part time
in the evening.4 Enrollment for the 1969 fall semester
in the day and evening school was 805 students and
1,470 registrations, and for the 1970 spring semester,
742 students and 1,251 registrations. During the same
period in the Saturday school, there were 387 students
during the fall semester, and 437 students during the
spring semester.
During 1969 the Employer grossed revenues in the
approximate amount of $1,104,000. Of this amount,
approximately $171,000 was derived from income
from investments, $23,500 from admissions, approxi-
mately $253,000 from donations and memberships.
During this same period the Employer received
approximately $525,000 from tuition fees at the
School of Art.
The Employer urges the Board to decline to assert
jurisdiction over it because, it contends, that the
Employer is an art museum, and a nonprofit charita-
ble institution contributing to the cultural values of
the community and that the Board should, in its
discretion, decline to assert jurisdiction because the
Employer is not engaged in commerce. Additionally,
the Employer, though conceding that the Board
exercises plenary jurisdiction in the District of
Columbia generally, contends that the Board has not
exercised plenary jurisdiction over employers operat-
ing in the field of education in the District of
Columbia. Finally the Employer contends that
although the Board in Cornell University5 has reversed
its ruling in the Columbia University cases such, reversal
should,not affect the decision in this case because the
Employer is only incidentally an educationaEorganiza-
tion, and a small local one at that. We find no merit
in these contentions.
The record clearly indicates that the Employer's
primary goal is education and that, the Gallery and
the School of Art constitute an educational institution
for the public promotion of works of art. The
Employer's permanent art collection, special exhib-
itions, Sunday concerts, and lectures constitute
4 The janitorial staff and the guard work in association with the gallery
staff.
5 183 NLRB No. 41.
6 Trustees of Columbia University, 97 NLRB 424.
7 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 143 NLRB 568; The
Westchester Corporation, 124 NLRB 194.
informal educational programs for the advancement
of various art forms. Significantly, the Employer's
annual report for 1967 indicated that the number of
public and private school children as well as adults on
Gallery tours had increased over the past year, and
that the Children's Gallery had become the most
popular part of the education program.
As noted previously, the Employer's School of Art
offers a more formalized educational program that is
based on credits earned toward a diploma which is
granted at the completion of 4 years of study or a
certificate which is awarded after the completion of a
2-year program. The school has a paid faculty,
students are charged tuition, classes are conducted on
a formal basis, regular attendance is required at all
classes, students are evaluated and graded with
respect to their ability and progress, and income from
tuition amounts to nearly half of the Employer's total
income. Clearly, the School of Art is not merely
incidental to the Employer's asserted main purpose of
exhibiting its permanent art collection.
Although the Employer is a nonprofit corporation,
the Board has often held that it will assert jurisdiction
over a nonprofit corporation which has engaged in
activities commercial in nature.? As noted above, the
Employer employs approximately 129 persons; it sells
paintings and reproductions of paintings; it charges
admission to its gallery; it receives income from its
endowment of approximately $3,600,000 which is
invested in real estate notes, treasury notes, and
corporate bonds; and it receives income from its
School of Art of approximately $525,000 in tuitions.
In these circumstances we find that the Employer is
engaged in commerce as defined in Section 2(6) of the
Act.
As contended by the Employer, the Board declined
to assert jurisdiction over a food service management
business at Trinity College in Crotty Brothers,8 and
over a nonprofit corporation engaged in the exchange
of books and periodicals in United States Book
Exchange,9 both of which were located in the District
of Columbia, because they were connected with the
educational system. Thus, in those cases, the Board
declined to follow its general policy of exercising
plenary jurisdiction over employers located in the
District of Columbia,10 and instead followed its
policy of not asserting jurisdiction over nonprofit
educational institutions. 11 However, we announced in
Cornell University, supra, that we would no longer
decline to assert jurisdiction over educational institu-
tions as a class. Since we no longer decline to assert
8 Crotty Brothers, N.Y., Inc., 146 NLRB 755; The Westchester
Corporation, supra.
" United States Book Exchange, Inc., 167 NLRB 1028.
10 M. S. Ginn and Company, 114 NLRB 112; The Westchester
Corporation, supra.
Trustees of Columbia University, 97 NLRB 424.
TRUSTEES OF THE CORCORAN GALLERY OF ART 567
jurisdiction over educational institutions , such as the
Employer herein, there is no longer any reason not to
follow our decision in M. S. Ginn. Accordingly, we
find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
2. Petitioner claims to represent certain of the
Employer's employees.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain of the Employer's
employees within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated as to the appropriateness
of the guard unit . However, the Employer would
include the sergeant of the guard . The Petitioner
would exclude him because of his asserted supervisory
authority . There is testimony that the sergeant checks
the guard stations , he arranges relief for the various
stations , and he receives 12 percent more salary than
the other guards . Testimony indicates that the
sergeant has no authority to hire, discharge, or
discipline guards or effectively recommend such
action . We do not consider this limited evidence
sufficient to find that the sergeant responsibly directs
guards in the performance of their duties . On the basis
of the foregoing we find that the sergeant of the
guards is not a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2( 11) of the Act. Accordingly , we shall include
him in the unit.
We find that the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All regular part-time and full-time guards of the
Employer employed at its Washington, D.C.
location , and excluding all other employees , office
clerical employees , professional employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election omitted from publication.]