GMN Tri County Action Committee

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1990

300 N.L.R.B. 963 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

963
300 NLRB No. 135
GMN TRI COUNTY ACTION COMMITTEE
1 On the same date that review was granted the Board, sua sponte remanded
the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of receiving additional evi-
dence regarding the Employer’s tripartite board of directors in order to deter-
mine the Sec. 2(2) status of the Employer under NLRB v. Natural Gas Utility
District of Hawkins County, 402 U.S. 600 (1971).
2 The three counties served by the Employer are Guernsey, Monroe, and
Noble. The Employer was incorporated on November 6, 1965, by three indi-
viduals under Ohio nonprofit corporation laws. The Employer is also a tax-
exempt corporation pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §
501(c)(3).
3 Economic Opportunity Act, of 1964, 78 stat. 516, as amended; Community
Services Block Grant Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9901, 9904(c) (Aug. 13, 1981).
4 Ohio Revised Code Sec. 122.66 to 122.70 (1984). See also Ohio Revised
Code Title 17, ch. 1724.
5 See Community Services Block Grant Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9904 (c)(3).
6 At art. VI, sec. 6.3, the bylaws provide that each of the three counties the
Employer serves be represented by two low-income members chosen in elec-
tions held at meetings of the counties’ Policy Advisory Committees. Art. VI,
sec. 6.4 describes the low-income members election process, specifying, inter
alia, that voters ‘‘must show proof of residence in the appropriate county and
must sign a statement certifying that he or she is low income as defined by
the Community Services Administration.’’ Further, sec. 6.4 provides for writ-
ten ballots when there are two or more candidates for a seat on the board.
7 Sec. 2(2) of the Act provides that the term ‘‘employer’’ shall not include
‘‘any State or political subdivision thereof.’’
GMN Tri County Community Action Committee,
Inc. and Ohio Association of Public School Em-
ployees, AFSCME/AFL–CIO, Petitioner. Case
9–RC–15033
December 21, 1990
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
On January 8, 1987, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 9 issued a Decision and Order in the above-enti-
tled proceeding in which he declined to assert jurisdic-
tion over the Employer. In accordance with Section
102.67 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Peti-
tioner filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director’s decision. By telegraphic order dated April 8,
1987, the Board granted the Petitioner’s request for re-
view.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the entire record, includ-
ing the briefs, and makes the following findings.
The Employer is a private nonprofit Ohio corpora-
tion formed to administer antipoverty programs origi-
nating under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.
It serves a three-county area in Ohio.2 The Employer
receives funds from Federal, state, and local govern-
ment for such programs as Head Start, Job Training
Partnership, Project Teach, Weatherization, Home En-
ergy Assistance, and Senior Services. The approxi-
mately 25 employees in the petitioned-for unit are em-
ployed in the Employer’s Head Start program, which
is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS).
The facts on which this case turns are not in dispute.
The Employer has incorporated into its bylaws various
Federal3 and state laws4 that require the Employer to
administer its programs through a tripartite board of di-
rectors. This board of directors is to be composed of
one-third elected public or appointed officials, one-
third representatives of the poor in the area served, and
one-third officials or members of business, industry,
labor, religious, welfare, education, or other major
groups and interests in the community.5 Here, the 18-
member board of directors is composed of 6 members
from each of the 3 groups. The public official mem-
bers, the representatives of the poor, and the private
sector members are selected in accordance with article
VI, sections 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4,6 and 6.7, repectively, of
the Employer’s bylaws.
Recently, in two companion cases, Economic Secu-
rity Corp., 299 NLRB 554 (1990), and Woodbury
County Community Action Agency, 299 NLRB 554
(1990), the Board held that private nonprofit commu-
nity service corporations, which were established for
the purpose of administering an array of federally sub-
sidized antipoverty programs at a local level each
qualified as a ‘‘political subdivision’’ of a state under
Section 2(2) of the Act because each is governed by
a tripartite board of directors, two-thirds of whom (rep-
resenting a majority) are ‘‘responsible to the general
electorate.’’7
In applying this standard here, we note that the ap-
plicable laws and the Employer’s bylaws require, inter
alia, that one-third of the board of directors be ‘‘rep-
resentative of the poor elected according to dem-
onstrate selection procedure.’’ When the one-third
‘‘representative of the poor’’ board members are com-
bined with the one-third of the board members who are
‘‘elected public officials . . . responsible to the gen-
eral electorate’’ the result is that two-thirds of the Em-
ployer’s board of directors are responsible to public of-
ficials or the general electorate under the holdings of
Economic Security and Woodbury.
In these circumstances, we find the Employer to be
a political subdivision of the State of Ohio. Accord-
ingly, we do not have jurisdiction over the Employer
and we will dismiss the petition.
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
CHAIRMAN STEPHENS, dissenting.
For the reasons set forth in my dissent in Woodbury
County Community Action Agency, 299 NLRB 554
(1990), I would assert jurisdiction and would not dis-
miss the petition.