Queens Borough Public Library

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 974 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Queens Borough Public Library, Employer-Petitioner
and District Council 37 and its affiliated Local No.
1321, American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees , AFL-CIO. Case 29-UC-32
March 21, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Upon a petition filed by Queens Borough Public Li-
brary, herein called the Employer or the Library, on
March 19, 1971, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Gary T. Kendellen of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board. District Council 37 and its affiliated Local
No. 1321, American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, which has been recognized by the Library since
March 1968 as the exclusive bargaining representative
for certain employees, participated in the hearing.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8,
as amended, by direction of the Regional Director for
Region 29, this case was transferred to the Board for
decision. Thereafter, the Employer and the Union filed
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding 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
prejudical error. They are hereby affirmed.'
Contrary to the contentions of the Union, the Li-
brary argues that it is not a political subdivision within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, that the Board
should assert jurisdiction over the Library, and that
certain classifications of employees should be excluded
from the unit as being supervisors. For the reasons
stated, infra, we find that it would not effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Li-
brary and we dismiss the petition without determining
whether the Library is a statutory employer.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
In 1896 the regents of the University of the State of
New York issued a charter to the Long Island City
Public Library. In 1899 the regents amended this
' Subsequent to the close of the hearing, the Union moved that a letter
dated March 19, 1959, be admitted into evidence as its Exh 48 The Union
also requested the Board to strike Employer's Exh 15 on the ground that
the Employer failed to submit certification that this document was a true
copy of the original Both motions are hereby denied as we have not relied
on either the Union's proposed Exh 48 or the Employer's Exh 15 in
reaching our decision herein
charter to provide, inter alia, that the name of the
Library be changed to Queens Borough Library and
that it be governed by 15 trustees appointed by the
mayor of the city of New York.
As a result of an offer made by Andrew Carnegie to
furnish money needed for the erection of buildings for
free branch libraries, in 19012 the Legislature of the
State of New York authorized the city of New York to
acquire title to sites for such branches. Thereafter, in
1907' and again in 1913" the legislature incorporated
the Queens Borough Public Library as "a body politic
and corporate" and merged the Queens Borough Li-
brary with this new corporation.
In accordance with the 1907 and 1913 laws, 15 trust-
ees, in addition to the mayor, the comptroller, and the
president of the Board of Aldermen of the city of New
York, who serve as ex officio members, constitute the
Library's board of trustees. The trustees' term of office
is for 5 years, they serve without compensation, and
they are appointed by the mayor who administers an
oath of office to all new trustees. According to the
bylaws of the Library, trustees can be removed from
office by a two-thirds vote of all the members of the
board but this removal is subject to approval by the
mayor.
Trustees control the expenditure of all money appro-
priated by the city for the maintenance of the Library
but the Library is required to submit annual reports of
its operations to the comptroller of the city of New
York. Moreover, while the Library is generally free to
hire its own employees, fix salaries, and establish its
own rules and regulations, the money required for sa-
laries and operating expenses of the Library is provided
by the city out of tax revenues and the title to all
Library buildings, books, and furniture is in the name
of the city of New York.
At the present time, the Library employs approxi-
mately 1,000 employees and operates a central library,
55 branch libraries, and 3 bookmobiles. During the
1969-70 fiscal year the Library had a total gross in-
come in excess of $10 million of which approximately
$8.5 million was furnished by the city and $1.5 million
by the State of New York and the Federal Government.
Only $326,000 was derived from funds generated from
Library operations such as rentals and fines for overdue
books.
In order to obtain this money from the city, in
December of each year the Library submits an expense
budget to the budget director for the city of New York.
Thereafter, the budget director schedules a meeting
with officials of the Library at which any questions the
director has with respect to specific items in the budget
i Chapter 580, Laws of 1901
' Chapter 164, Laws of 1907
' Chapter 541, Laws of 1913
195 NLRB No. 174
QUEENS BOROUGH PUBLIC LIBRARY 975
are answered. Following this meeting, the city pub-
lishes the mayor's executive budget for the Library and
public hearings are held before the New York City
Board of Estimate and the City Council Finance Com-
mittee. After these public hearings, the budget is ap-
proved by the board of estimate and the city council
and is submitted to the mayor for his signature.
Somewhat similar procedures are followed with re-
spect to the Library's capital budget. This budget con-
tains, inter alia, requests for additional physical facili-
ties needed by the Library and, after approval by
various city authorities, the comptroller of the city sells
municipal bonds to finance, inter alia, these Library
capital requirements . In addition , the New York City
commissioner of real estate negotiates for the sale of
any real property, needed for the Library's expansion
and, if the sale cannot be concluded, uses the city's
powers of eminent domain to condemn the property.
While Library employees are not included in the city
of New York's civil service system, they do participate
in the New York State employees' retirement system
with the city paying the requisite employercontribu-
tions. Moreover, Library employees are paid according
to the schedules set for various classifications reflected
in the New York city career and salary pay plan.
Under this plan, the Union negotiates directly with
the city for increases in the wages paid Library em-
ployees. In the past, the. Union negotiated with the
Library concerning all other terms and conditions of
employment of its employees. Recent changes in this
procedure are discussed below.
While the Library hires, fires, promotes, sets working
hours and other employment conditions for its own
employees, and pays employees with checks drawn
from the Library's bank accounts, the city personnel
director must approve the Library's payment of any
negotiated retroactive wage increases and shift differen-
tials as well as any contemplated reclassification of Li-
brary employees. In addition, the Library was required
to comply with 1969 and 1970 job freezes imposed by
the city of New York. Moreover , all repairs to Library
buildings are made by the City Department of Public
Works and the Library's investigators are sworn in by
the New York Police Department as "special patrol-
men."
In posthearing correspondence from both the Union
and the Library, it appears that on October 21, 1971,
the Library's board of trustees elected to make applica-
ble to the Library the provisions of the New York City
Collective Bargaining Law. Thus, in the future the
Union will negotiate all terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the Library employees with the New York
City director of labor relations.
In Temple University we concluded that because of
the "unique relationship" between the University and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania we would decline
to assert jurisdiction . In the instant proceeding, the
nexus between the Library and the city of New York
is as close, if not closer , for without city support the
Library would cease to exist . Thus, the city supplies in
excess of 80 percent of the Library's operating income
and the State of New York and the Federal Govern-
ment supply the remainder save the relatively minus-
cule amount generated by the Library through its own
operations.
In addition , the Library 's expense and capital budg-
ets are dependent on approval by the city , the city
acquires all real estate required by the Library , the title
to all Library property is in the name of the city, and
the city provides repair services for all Library build-
ings.
In spite of the control the Library exercises over the
day-to-day operations of its facilities and personnel, the
approval of the city must be obtained before retroactive
wage increases and shift differentials can be paid. More-
over , in 1969 and 1970 the city did effectively control
the Library by imposing a hiring freeze. Finally, during
the time the Union has represented Library employees,
the city has carried the burden of negotiating with the
Union the wages of Library employees ; in the future the
city will negotiate with the Union all other terms and
conditions of employment of Library employees.
For these reasons, we conclude that, irrespective of
the Library 's status under Section 2(2) of the Act, it
would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction over the Library . 6 Accordingly , we shall
dismiss the petition.7
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
' 194 NLRB No. 195.
The Library, in contending that the result herein should be otherwise,
relies on Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts, 194 NLRB No. 55. We view that
case as clearly distinguishable . Thus, unlike the present case , in Minneapolis
Society of Fine Arts only a very minor percent of the society 's finances were
derived from tax revenue , and no state or municipal government exercised
any supervision or control over the society 's operations.
' Temple University, supra.