Columbia University in the City of New York

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 424 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership in and activities on behalf of a labor organization, the Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) or (3) of the Act by discharging and thereafter
failing and refusing to reinstate Leon Ploski.
6. The Respondent did not violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by stating to
employees that they would be discharged or disciplined if they became members
of the Union, by stating to employees that they would be discharged or disci-
plined if they engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, by warning employees not to
become members of the Union, or to engage in union or concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or by
offering employees economic benefits if they would not become members of the
Union or vote for the Union.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume J
THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK 1
amt COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL AGENCY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1707, CIO,
PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-248. December 11, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Merton C. Bernstein, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit consisting of all clerical
employees in the libraries of Columbia University, excluding all pro-
fessional employees and supervisors, as defined in the Act. The
Petitioner contends that the Employer, herein called Columbia Uni-
versity, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert
its jurisdiction in this proceeding. Columbia University contends
that it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and
that, even if the Board does have jurisdiction over its activities, the
' The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to show the correct
name of the Employer.
97 NLRB No. 72.
THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - 425
Board, in the exercise of its discretion, should not assert its jurisdic-
tion in this proceeding.
Columbia University is a nonprofit educational corporation char-
tered by a special act of the Legislature of the State of New York.
The University consists of Columbia College and the schools of Jour-'
nalism, General Studies, Architecture, Business, Law, Library Science,
Graduate Faculties, Nursing, and Medicine. Its income is derived
almost completely from its endowment, from gifts, and from tuition
and other payments made by students. The sole purpose of Columbia
University is the promotion of education, and all of its activities are
directed toward that end. Although the activities of Columbia Uni-
versity affect commerce sufficiently to satisfy the requirements of the
statute and the standards established by the Board for the normal
exercise of its jurisdiction;2 we do not believe that it would effectuate
the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction here.
The Board has not exempted nonprofit organizations from the
operation of the Act where the particular activities involved have
been commercial in the generally accepted senses In this respect,
however, previous cases involving educational institutions do not
provide a precedent for this case. In the Henry Ford Trade School
2 During the academic year ended June 30, 1950 , Columbia University had a direct
inflow of $52,500 ( 10.5 percent of the standard established by Federal Dairy Co, Inc.,
91 NLRB 638) and an indirect inflow of $584 ,000 (58.4 percent of the standard established
by Dorn's House of Miracles , Inc., 91 -NLRB 632 ). During the same period , it also had a
direct outflow of $4,890 from the sale of photostats , microfilms, and the Germanic and
Romanic Reviews ( 19 percent of the standard established by Stantslaus Implement and
Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618 ) and an indirect outflow of $21,150 from
the sale of radio and television rights to its football games ( 42 3 percent of the standard
established by Hollow Tree Lumber Company , 91 NLRB 635 ). During the same period,
Columbia University received $117,000 for rental of some of its real property to three
corporations each directly shipping goods valued at more than $25,000 in interstate com-
merce. This factor alone provides 234 percent of the jurisdictional standard established
by Hollow Tree Lumber Company, supra . Southland Building and Annex, 94 NLRB 1150.
In addition , Columbia University does a substantial amount of classified contract work
for defense agencies . Compare Westport Moving and Storage Company , 91 NLRB 902.
Columbia University also owns approximately $ 51,000 , 000 of Federal and municipal bonds
and stocks and bonds in public utilities , railroads , banks, insurance companies , and indus-
trial corporations . Substantial sales and purchases of such securities are made each
year to protect and preserve the capital thus invested . Compare Polish National Alliance
v. N. L. It. B., 322 U. S. 643, 646 ( 1944 ) ; Trt-State Casualty Insurance Company, 83
NLRB 828, 829, enfd . 188 F. 2d 50 (C. A. 10, 1951 ) ; Association Canado-Americaine, 72
NLRB 520, 521.-
8 Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention , 92 NLRB 801 ( corporation
editing and publishing religious literature ) ; Port Arthur College, 92 NLRB 152 ( college
operating commercial radio station ) ; Illinois Institute of Technology , 81 NRLB 201
(college and affiliated research foundations performing industrial research sponsored by
business concerns ) ; Association Canado-Americaine , 72 NLRB 520 ( fraternal society
operating insurance business ) ; Henry Ford Trade School , 58 NLRB 1535; 63 NLRB 1134
(voctional school peforming necessary services for industrial concern ) ; Polish National
Alliance, 42 NLRB 1375 , enfd. 136 F . 2d 175 ( C. A. 9, 1943 ), affd. 322 U S 643 (fraternal
society operating insurance business ) ; American Medical Associatwn , 39 NLRB 385
(organization publishing medical journal, magazine , and pamphlets ) ; Christian Board of
Publication , 13 NLRB 534 , enfd. 113 F. 2d 678 (C. A 8, 1940) ( corporation publishing
religious books and pamphlets , medical books and pamphlets, and doing a small amount of
job printing). - -
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-case,' the school received in excess of $3,000,000 from the Ford Motor
Company for the manufacture and repair of tools for the Company.
-In the Illinois Institute of Technology case,5 the two research founda-
tions involved were engaged in research and experimentation projects
-for industrial concerns on a-cost basis, and had practically no educa-
tional programs. In the Port Arthur College case,' the petitioner
sought a unit of employees at a commercial radio station operated by
the college, but not utilized for instructional purposes in connection
with its courses of study. This case, unlike previous cases , presents
the question of whether it will effectuate the policies of the Act for
the Board to assert its jurisdiction where the activities concerned are
intimately connected with the educational activities of the institution
and are noncommercial in nature.
In support of its argument that the Board should not assert its
jurisdiction in this case, Columbia University relies upon the legisla-
tive history of the charitable hospital exemption contained in Section
2 (2) of the amended Act.' The earliest legislative form of this ex-
emption is set forth in Section 2 of H. R. 3020, 80th Congress, 1st Ses-
sion, as reported to the Ilouse, which excluded from the definition of
"employer" the following enterprises :
... any corporation, community chest, fund or foundation or-
ganized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scien-
tific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of
cruelty to children or animals , no part of the net earnings of
which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or indi-
vidual, and no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying
on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.
The Senate counterpart of the foregoing legislation, namely S.
1126, 80th Congress, 1st Session, as reported to the Senate, contained
no exemption for charitable or nonprofit organizations. However,
during the debate on the Senate bill, Senator dings offered, and
the Senate agreed to, an amendment excluding from the definition
of "employer" "any corporation or association operating a hospital,
if no part of the net earnings inures to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual." 8 -
4 58 NLRB 1535 , 63 NLRB 1134. -
81 NLRB 201.
' 92 NLRB 152. -
7 We are not unaware of the general rule that there is no need to refer to the legislative
history of an act where the statutory language is clear. However, ". . . words are inexact
tools at best , and for that reason there is wisely no rule of law forbidding resort to explana-
tory legislative history no matter how 'clear the words may appear on "superficial examina-
tion. ' " - Harrison v. Northern Trust Co., 317 U. S. 476, 479 (1942 ). Moreover, we note
that the Petitioner refers to the legislative history of the charitable hospital exemption in
support of its argument that the Board should assert its jurisdiction in this proceeding.
8 93 Congressional Daily Record 5129 , May 12, 1947 ; 2 Legislative History of the Labor
Management - Relations Act, 1947, 1464.
THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 427
The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as finally passed,
adopted the Senate amendment for the exclusion of charitable hos-
pitals only, from which, it might be inferred, as the Petitioner argues,
that Congress intended to exempt only charitable hospitals and no
other nonprofit organizations. However, the Conference Report on
the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 states, in explanation
of the adoption of the Senate amendment : 9
The conference agreement follows the provisions of the House
bill in the matter of agents of an employer, and follows the
Senate amendment in the matter of exclusion of nonprofit cor-
porations and associations operating hospitals. The other non-
profit organizations excluded under the House bill are not
specifically excluded in the conference agreement, for only in
exceptional circumstances and in connection with purely com-
mercial activities of such organizations have any of the activities
of such organizations or of their employees been considered as
affecting commerce so as to bring them within the scope of the
National Labor Relations Act. (Emphasis added.)
Regardless of whether or not the conference report literally recites
the Board's practice prior to the amendment of the Act, it does indicate
approval of and reliance upon the Board's asserting jurisdiction over
nonprofit organizations "only in exceptional circumstances and in
connection with purely commercial activities of such organizations."
Whether or not this language provides a mandate, it certainly pro-
vides a guide.
Under all the circumstances, we do not believe that it would
effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert its jurisdiction
over a nonprofit, educational institution where the activities involved
are noncommercial in nature and intimately connected with the
charitable purposes and educational activities of the institution io
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY - ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
e House Report No. 510, 80th Cong ., 1st Sess., p . 32; 1 Legislative History of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 1947, 505, 536.
30 Cf. St. Lakes v. Labor Relations Commission , 320 Mass. 467 ; 70 N. E. 2d 10 ( 1946)
Petition of Salvation Army, 349 Pa. 105, 36 A. 2d 479 (1944) ; Western Pennsylvan4a
Hospital, et at. v. Lichlater, 340 Pa 382, 17 A. 2d 206 (1941 ) ; Jewish Hospital of Brook-
lyn V. Doe, et al, 252 App. Div 581, 300 N. Y. S 1111 (Sup. Ct, App Div., 2nd Dept., 1937) ;
Philadelphia, et at V. Lichliter, 14 LRRM• 603 (Pa. Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin
County, 1944).