Columbia University in the City of New York

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).