Farmworker Institute of Education & Leadership Development, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 2016

31-RC-164338 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 7, 2016)

1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FARMWORKER INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION AND LEADERSHIP
DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Employer
and Case 31-RC-164338
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS,
BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND
HELPERS, AFL-CIO
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

1 In denying review, we agree with the Regional Director, for the reasons she stated, that the
Employer charter school is not exempt as a political subdivision under Sec. 2(2) of the National
Labor Relations Act. We find that the Regional Director correctly applied the test in NLRB v.
Natural Gas Utility District of Hawkins County, 402 U.S. 600 (1971) (“Hawkins County”), in
finding that the Employer was neither created directly by the state so as to constitute a
department or administrative arm of the government nor administered by individuals who are
responsible to public officials or the general electorate. We do not, however, rely on the
Regional Director’s citation to Chicago Mathematics & Science Academy Charter School, 359
NLRB 455 (2012), a recess-Board decision. See NLRB v. Noel Canning, 1345 S. Ct. 2550
(2014). Instead, we find that the Regional Director’s analysis is consistent with Pennsylvania
Virtual Charter School, 364 NLRB No. 87 (2016) and Hyde Leadership Charter School, 364
NLRB No. 88 (2016). In each of those cases, the Board applied the Hawkins County test to a
charter school operating pursuant to a state statute, whose creation by individual applicants and
governance by its board of trustees exhibit only minor, non-substantive differences from the
instant case. In asserting jurisdiction in those cases, the Board rejected arguments similar to
those raised by the Employer in this case.
2
Member Miscimarra, dissenting:
I would grant the Employer’s Request for Review and dismiss the petition. The Employer
operates a charter school chartered by the Nevada County, California Board of Education and the
California State Board of Education pursuant to the California Charter Schools Act of 1992. For
the reasons fully explained in my dissenting opinions in Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School,
364 NLRB No. 87, slip op. at 11-18 (2016) (Member Miscimarra, dissenting), and Hyde
Leadership Charter School, 364 NLRB No. 88, slip op. at 14-15 (2016) (Member Miscimarra,
dissenting), I believe the Board should decline to assert jurisdiction over charter schools
generally and in this case.
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., November 7, 2016.