Mon Valley United Health Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 6, 1977

227 N.L.R.B. 728 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

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).