American Technical Assistance Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 959 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

AMERICAN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CORP
American Technical Assistance Corporation and Dis-
trict Council 1707, Community and Social Agency
Employees Union, Local 215, AFSCME, AFL-
CIO Case AO-178
June 16, 1976
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING,
JENKINS, AND PENELLO
A petition was filed on March 19, 1976, by Ameri-
can Technical Assistance Corporation, herein called
the Employer, for an Advisory Opinion, in conformi-
ty with Sections 102 98 and 102 99 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, seeking
to determine whether the Board would assert juris-
diction over the Employer On April 1, 1976, the Em-
ployer submitted a brief in support of its petition
In pertinent part the petition and brief allege as
follows
(1) There are pending before the New York State
Labor Relations Board, herein called the State
Board, charges filed by District Council 1707, Com-
munity and Social Agency Employees Union, Local
215, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union,
Case SU-49573, alleging that the Employer has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain
collectively No determination has been made by the
State Board with respect to such charges, nor has any
union been certified by any government agency as
the representative of any employees of the Employer
at its Fort Totten facility involved herein
(2) The Employer is a private corporation operat-
ed for profit Its main office is located in McLean,
Virginia ' At present, the Employer operates the New
York City Job Corps Center located at Fort Totten,
Bayside, New York, under contract with the United
States Department of Labor The Center is a residen-
tial vocational training center designed to train 275
underprivileged youths between the ages of 16 and
22 The youths must not have completed high school
There are 90 percent from New York City, 5 percent
from Puerto Rico, and 5 percent from the Virgin Is-
lands The youths are recruited through the Human
Resources Centers and social service agencies of
New York City and territorial agencies in Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands All the agencies are un-
der contract with the United States Department of
Labor to recruit candidates, who are then evaluated
and screened by the Employer which accepts those
i The Employer is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Research Corpo
ration which is located in Santa Barbara California
959
candidates who it believes will benefit from the pro-
gram
The Center provides food, clothing, dormitory fa-
cilities, and sociological and career counseling
Training is provided in basic educational skills, and
courses are offered which prepare each youth for the
New York State GED test (high school equivalency)
Vocational training is given in areas involving the
automotive trades, building trades, and electronics
The Center also provides recreational activities and
medical and dental care
(3) The total value of the present contract,2 which
runs for a term of 1 year (July 1, 1975, to June 30,
1976), between the Employer and the United States
Department of Labor is $1,679,000 3 At the Fort Tot-
ten facility, the Employer purchases goods and serv-
ices valued in excess of $50,000 from firms located
within and without the State of New York 4
(4) The Union neither admits nor denies the afore-
said commerce data and the State Board has made
no findings with respect thereto
(5) There is no representation or unfair labor
practice proceeding involving the same labor dispute
pending before this Board 5
(6) Although served with a copy of this 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 opin-
ion that
(1) The Employer is a private corporation which
operates for profit It presently operates the New
York City Job Corps Center located at Fort Totten,
Bayside, New York, under contract with the United
States Department of Labor Among its services are
the training of underprivileged youths between the
ages of 16 and 22, 90 percent of whom are from New
York City, providing food, clothing, dormitory facili-
ties, and sociological and career counseling, provid-
ing basic educational skills and courses, and provid-
ing vocational training involving the automobile
trades, building trades, and electronics 6
(2) The total value of the Employer's present con-
tract with the United States Department of Labor is
2 The contract contains a 1 year renewal option Costs are renegotiated at
the end of the contract year
3 In addition to operating the Fort Totten facility the Employer has con
tracts with other Federal agencies for worldwide agricultural research and
for data collection concerning medicaid abuse drug treatment centers and
mental health programs Its gross annual revenues are approximately $3 5
million
4 As it is not clear how much of the $50 000 is the Employer s out of state
purchases in reaching our opinion herein the Board assumes that such
out of state purchases are more than de minimis and therefore sufficient to
establish statutory jurisdiction N L R B v Fainblatt et at 306 U S 601
606-607 (1939)
5 A representation petition Case 29-RM-492 was filed with this Board
on February 27 1976 The petition was withdrawn on March 22 1976
6 See Federal Electric Corporation 162 NLRB 512 (1966) Training Corpo
ration of America Inc 162 NLRB 286 (1966)
224 NLRB No 138
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in excess of $1 6 million, and meets every discretion-
ary jurisdictional standard we have applied to date
On the assumption that the Employer's out-of-state
purchases are more than de minimis and our statuto-
ry jurisdiction is satisfied,' we conclude on the basis
of the allegations submitted herein that the
7 See In 4 supra
Employer's operations satisfy the Board's current ju-
risdictional standards
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section
102 103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, that on the allegations submitted
herein the Board would assert jurisdiction over the
Employer's operations with respect to disputes cog-
nizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act