Springfield Library and Museums Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 18, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 1209 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

SPRING LIBRARY AND MUSEUMS ASSN. 1209
Springfield Library and Museums Association and
American Federation of State , County and Munici-
pal Employees, AFL-CIO, District Council 41.
Case AO-173
December 18, 1975
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
This petition for Advisory Opinion was filed on
September 2, 1975, by the Springfield Library and
Museums Association, hereafter Petitioner, pursuant
to Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, for a
determination whether the Board would assert
jurisdiction over the Petitioner's activities. Petitioner
has submitted a brief and an affidavit, with exhibits
attached, by its controller in support of the petition.
In pertinent part, the petition, brief, and affidavit,
with exhibits, allege as follows:
1. There is pending before the Massachusetts
Labor Relations Commission, hereafter the Commis-
sion, a representation proceeding, Case MCR-2236,
filed by the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, District
Council 41, hereafter the Union, wherein the Union
seeks representation in a unit consisting of all
nonprofessional employees employed at "the Spring-
field Library." The Commission has indefinitely
adjourned further proceedings pending a determina-
tion of the petition for Advisory Opinion.
2. Petitioner, located in Springfield, Massachu-
setts, is an incorporated nonprofit organization,
which was incorporated by an act of the legislature of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and whose
corporate, purpose is to maintain libraries and
museums. In addition, thereto, it maintains an
aquarium and a planetarium, and conducts lectures,
courses, and special classes in the 'various disciplines
within the realm of the museums and library.'
3. By affidavit of its controller, Petitioner states
that for the year ending June 30, 1975, revenues
exceeded $2.8 million, and that its current fiscal year
budget is $2,551,000. As of June 30, 1975, Petitioner
I The Act of Incorporation declares, in substance , that the purpose of the
corporation was to , establish and maintain a library and a museum of
natural history and art, for the diffusion of knowledge and the promotion of
intellectual improvement in the city of Springfield. The trustees of the
corporation were granted "all the powers and privileges in force
concerning corporations " The corporation was authorized to purchase real
and personal property, to accept grants , donations or bequests , and trusts;
and to issue such regulations as it may prescribe pursuant to its bylaws for
the use and enjoyment by the public of its library, museum, and collections.
In 1948, the purposes of the Petitioner were amended and enlarged to
include "promoting and encouraging the study, appreciation , understanding
and development of literature , art, science, nature , music, history and
education , including the acquiring, purchasing, collecting, housing, preserv-
221 NLRB No. 194
had an endowment of $3,917,648, and of this amount
$3,497,049 has been invested in market securities
consisting of stocks and bonds, which are publicly
traded. Funds held in trust for Petitioner amounted
to $6,341,444. In addition to income from its
endowments and trust funds, Petitioner receives
income in the form of membership fees, tuition fees,
retail shop sales, and contributions from individuals
and organizations. The city of Springfield appropri-
ated $1,930,607 during fiscal year 1974-75, which
amounted to 68.8 percent of Petitioner's revenues.
Properties, including ownership of the land and
buildings of five of seven branch libraries,2 art, and
various library collections held by Petitioner, are
valued in excess of $20 million.
During fiscal year 1974-75, Petitioner expended
$406,039 for purchases of goods and services, which
originated directly outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. These expenditures were for equip-
ment rentals, book purchases, supplies, fuel, printing
and binding, art and museum equipment and
supplies, building equipment and supplies, and
transportation of persons, collections, and equip-
ment . During 1974, over 100,000 individuals visited
the museum, and presentations and programs by the
planetarium staff reached over 7,700 students who
visited the museum . Annually,, 600 to 700 classes of
students from western New England visited the
museum.
4. The petition alleges that the board of trustees is
responsible for the management, control, and direc-
tion of all of the business affairs of the Petitioner,
including the buying and selling of real estate and
personal property. The trustees' authority also
includes the power to fix the salaries of all the
employees of the Petitioner, and to establish rules
and regulations governing their employment.3 There
are 30 trustees, 3 of whom are ex officio trustees, and
27 of whom are non ex officio trustees. The ex officio
trustees consist of two elected officers, viz, the mayor
of the city of Springfield and the president of the city
council of the city Of Springfield, and one appointed
public official, the superintendent of schools of
Springfield. The 27 other trustees are all public
citizens who do, not hold any public office and who
are trustees solely by virtue of their membership in
ing, cataloguing, - maintaining, exhibiting , loaning and borrowing for
exhibition , and otherwise dealing with and disposing of all books,
manuscripts , pictures, paintings , specimens,` relics, antiques, statuary and
other objects of art and science,-and the acquiring, purchasing , holding,
leasing and disposing of land , buildings , equipment , ,furnishings and other
personal property necessary in its judgment to carry out the aforesaid
purposes."
The original Act of Incorporation permitted the city of Springfield to
appropriate monies to the Petitioner as long as the Petitioner allowed the
inhabitants of the city of Springfield free access to the Petitioner 's premises
2 Two of the buildings in which branch libraries are located are leased
pursuant to a licensing agreement with the city of Springfield,
3 Art III, Bylaws of Springfield Library and Museums Association
1210 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Petitioner. The Petitioner hires its own employ-
ees; it determines and establishes all regulations and
conditions of employment governing its employees;
it pays its employees, with its- check's from out of its
revenues;,and its benefits and conditions of employ-
ment differ, from those received by city employees.
Moreover, Petitioner provides its own supervision
over its employees, who are solely responsible to
Petitioner and,ultimately to the board of trustees.
5. Neither the Commission nor the Union have
made any findings, with regard to the above-men-
tioned commerce data.
6. Petitioner alleges that there is no representa-
tion or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the
same labor dispute pending before this Board.
7. 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 foregoing, the Board is of the
opinion that:
1. Petitioner, located in Springfield, Massachu-
setts, is an ,.incorporated, nonprofit organization,
which was incorporated by an act of the legislature of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and whose
corporate purpose is to maintain libraries and
museums. In - addition thereto, it, maintains an
aquarium and a planetarium, and conducts lectures,
courses, and special classes in the various disciplines
within the realm of the museums and library.
2. As related above,, the Petitioner's annual
revenues are in excess of $2.8 million and its out-of-
state expenditures are in excess of $400,000. Accord-
ingly, it is, clear that the Petitioner herein is -engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and
meets every discretionary jurisdictional standard we
have applied to, date.4 In these circumstances, we
find that Petitioner meets the, discretionary, monetary
standards we have established and that, if Petitioner
is otherwise subject to the Act, it would effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
We do, not reach or pass on another issue raised in
the petition herein,5 viz, whether the Employer is an
"employer" within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act or excluded therefrom as a "political subdivi-
sion" (of the city of Springfield) as an Advisory
4 See The Helen Clay Frick Foundation, 217 NLRB, No. 182 (1975),
Trustees of the, Corcoran Gallery of Art, 186 NLRB 565 (1970); Cornell
University, 183,NLRB 329 (1970);,see also 29 C F R. §§ 103.1 and 103.2
which provide for the assertion of junsdiction in cases where the employer
has a gross annual revenue of $1 million.
5 Member Fanning does not read the petition as raising the issue of
Opinion is primarily for determining whether an
employer"'s 'operations in commerce meet the Board's
discretionary jurisdictional standards.6 '
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, under
Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, on the allegations
presented herein, the Board would find Petitioner to
be included within the discretionary monetary
standards we have established and, in'this respect,
the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petition-
er's operations with respect to labor disputes cogniz-
able under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the, Act.
CHAIRMAN MURPHY, dissenting:
I perceive no advantage to be derived by the
parties to this proceeding in advising them that while
Petitioner meets our monetary standards-a fact that
must be apparent to both-we nevertheless cannot
tell them whether we would assert jurisdiction over
the museum because of the existence of the underly-
ing issue of whether it qualifies as an employer under
Section 2(2) of the Act.'My colleagues correctly state
that the Board will not determine in advisory
proceedings whether an entity, -such as Petitioner
here, is statutorily exempt from our jurisdiction as a
"political subdivision." Obviously, since that is the
crucial issue sought to be resolved by this petition,
little or nothing will be accomplished by, informing
the 'parties that there is no question but that
Petitioner is "included within the discretionary
monetary standards." Under the majority's decision,
the Petitioner still must utilize our procedures under
Sections 8 or 9 of the Act to' obtain a final decision
from this Board concerning' whether-statutorily-
we can assert jurisdiction over Petitioner. According-
ly, I would follow the Board's procedure of dismiss-
ing advisory petitions which seek resolution of
exemption issues without reaching the question
whether Petitioner meets any of our discretionary
standards for asserting jurisdiction. I would deal with
that matter, together with the statutory issue, in any
subsequent appropriate proceeding that might fol-,
low.
whether or not the Employer is an "employer" within the meaning of Sec.
2(2) of the Act, or excluded therefrom as a "political subdivision" of the city
of Springfield.
6 Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (George Junior Republic), 215
NLRB No. 55 (1974); Yale-New Haven Hospital, 214 NLRB No. 34 (1974);
Globe Security Systems Inc, 209 NLRB 35 (1974).