Mon Valley United Health Services, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 6, 1977227 N.L.R.B. 728 (N.L.R.B. 1977) Copy Citation 728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mon Valley United Health Services, Inc. and Pennsyl- vania Social Services Union , Local 668, SEIU, AFL-CIO. Case AO-187 January 6, 1977 ADVISORY OPINION A petition was filed on July 12, 1976, by Mon Valley United Health Services, Inc., herein called the Employer, for an Advisory Opinion, in conformity 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 jurisdic- tion over the Employer's operations. On August 3, 1976, the Employer submitted a brief in support of its petition; on August 13, 1976, Pennsylvania Social Services Union, Local 668, SEIU, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, filed a response to the brief, with attachments; and on August 16, 1976, the Employer filed a response thereto. In pertinent part the petition, brief, and responses allege as follows: (1) There is pending before the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, herein called the State Board, a representation petition, Case No. PERA-R-8543-W, filed by the Union, seeking to be certified as the representative of certain employees of the Employer. There is also pending before the National Labor Relations Board a representation petition, Case 6- RC-7503, filed by the Union seeking certification of certain employees of the Employer. (2) The Employer is a nonprofit, charitable corpo- ration which provides health and welfare services throughout a four-county area in Pennsylvania. Some of the services administered by the Employer are: (a) mental health/mental retardation services; (b) resi- dential living units for mentally retarded adults; (c) a therapeutic activity center for the adult mentally retarded; (d) a consultation and education program which identifies and interprets existing health and welfare problems; (e) a drug and alcohol project which provides preventative and rehabilitation ser- vices; (f) home and health services for persons confined to their homes; (g) child development services which include a day care program, a diagnos- tic clinic, a preschool speech therapy program; and (h) senior citizens services which include recreational, social, and educational services; daily exercise; and nutritional programs. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, the Employer showed revenues of $1,596,767. Fees and grants from Federal, state, and local funding accounted for 91.7 percent of these revenues of which Federal funds accounted for 45 1 See Butte Medical Properties, d/b/a Medical Center Hospital, 168 NLRB 266,267 (1967). 227 NLRB No. 114 percent; United Way allocations and fees from clients each-accounted for 4 percent of the revenues; and the remaining was attributable to donations and miscellaneous contributions. There is no allegation as to the extent, if any, to which the Employer makes direct or indirect purchases from outside the Com- monwealth of Pennsylvania or makes sales or renders services directly or indirectly outside of Pennsylvania, or is otherwise affected by activities having a signifi- cant impact on interstate commerce. (3) The Union neither admits nor denies the aforesaid commerce data and the State Board has made no findings with respect thereto. (4) As noted above, there is a representation petition involving the same labor dispute pending before this Board. (5) Although the parties have been served with a copy of the petition for advisory opinion, no re- sponse, as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations, has been filed by the State Board. As noted above, the Union has filed a response with attachments to the Employer's brief and the Employ- er responded to the Union's response. On the basis of the foregoing, the Board is of the opinion that: (1) The Employer is a nonprofit, charitable corpo- ration which provides health and welfare services throughout a four-county area in Pennsylvania. (2) Although the submission by the Employer alleges that, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, revenues were in excess of $1.5 million, no evidence- such as direct or indirect out-of-state purchases, sales, or services by the Employer-has been submitted in this proceeding to show that its operations affect commerce and would be subject to the Board's legal or statutoryjurisdiction. In view of the large amounts of gross revenue and the further fact that 45 percent of such revenue or approximately $700,000 is derived from Federal funds, the transfer of such funds across state lines constitutes commerce more than sufficient to estab- lish our legal jurisdiction.1 Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations that on the allegations submitted herein, which establish that the Employer's operations meet every discretionary jurisdictional standard we have applied to date, and that legal jurisdiction would exist for the reasons noted, the Board concludes that it would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with respect to disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.2 2 In concluding that monetaryjurisdictional standards are met , we do not reach or decide issues raised by the Employer in his brief, namely, whether MON VALLEY UNITED HEALTH SERVICES 729 CHAIRMAN MURPHY, dissenting: I do not agree that this proceeding should result in issuance of an advisory opinion. My colleagues are advising the parties that the Employer meets our monetary standards-an obvious fact-but that we are unable to inform them whether we would assert jurisdiction over it because of other issues raised by the Employer. Thus, questions remain whether the Board should decline to assert jurisdiction on the grounds that the Employer's activities are an adjunct to municipal governments, are an outgrowth of the school system, or are those of charitable institutions other than nonprofit hospitals; because the Employer receives most of its revenues directly from local and state governmental entities ; or for some other good and compelling reason which exempts its activities from coverage under the Act. No purpose will be served by informing the parties that the Employer is within our discretionary mone- tary standards, but that we are unable to decide whether we would assert jurisdiction over it for statutory reasons. This is the fundamental issue, and it can only be resolved by resort to our procedures under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act. Accordingly, I would dismiss this petition for an advisory opinion and deal with the matter of discretionary as well as statutory jurisdiction in any subsequent appropriate proceed- ing.3 the Board should assertjunsdiction over all of the activities of the Employer or whether the Board should decline to assertjunsdiction over certain of the activities on the basis that they are an adjunct to municipal governments, or because they receive most of their revenues directly from local and state governmental entities, or because they are an outgrowth of the school system , or because certain activities are those of chartable institutions other than nonprofit hospitals, or because of some other good and compelling reason exempting such activities from coverage under the Act The Board's advisory opinion proceedings are designed pnmanly to determine questions of jurisdiction by application of the Board's discretionary monetary standards to the "commerce" operations of an employer and those issues raised by the Employer, noted above , do not fall within the intendment of the Board 's advisory opinion rules See Follett Corporation, 223 NLRB 800 (1976), Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (George Junior Republic), 215 NLRB 323 (1974); Globe Security Systems, Inc 209 NLRB 35 (1974); Robert C. Coleman, et al., 180 NLRB 529 (1969), International Air Service, Inc of San Juan, Puerto Rico, 165 NLRB 584 (1967) 3 See my dissent in Springfield Library and Museums Association, 221 NLRB 1209(1975). Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation