Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board and The Board of Trustees, Seton Hill College, and Seton Hill (College) Professional Association. Case AO-142 June 16, 1972 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR ADVISORY OPINION By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On April 24, 1972, the Pennsylvania Labor Rela- tions Board, a departmental agency of the Common- wealth of Pennsylvania under the Department of Labor and Industry, herein called the State Board, filed a petition pursuant to Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, requesting an advisory opinion concerning the State Board's jurisdiction over the Board of Trustees, Seton Hill College, herein called the Employer. On February 3, 1972, Seton Hill (College) Profes- sional Association, herein called the Association, by and through James Patrick Finn, Jr., filed an unfair labor practice charge with the State Board docketed to Case Number PERA-C-1491-W. In this proceed- ing, the Employer contended that it is subject to the jurisdiction of this Board and not the State Board 1 Robert C Coleman et al , 180 NLRB 529, International Air Service, Inc of San Juan, Puerto Rico, 165 NLRB 584 627 because it is not a public employer within the meaning of Section 301(1) of the Public Relations Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and it has an income in excess of $1 million. There is also pending before the State Board a representation proceeding involving the Employer filed on March 6, 1972, by the Association, docketed to Case Number PERA-R-2501-W. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has duly considered the allegations of the petition. The Board's Advisory Opinion proceed- ings "are designed primarily to determine questions of jurisdiction by application of the Board's discre- tionary standards to the `commerce' operations of an employer."' The basic issue presented herein is whether the Employer is an "employer" within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act or excluded therefrom as a "political subdivision" (of the Com- monwealth of Pennsylvania). As this issue does not fall within the intendment of the Board's Advisory Opinion rules, we shall dismiss the petition herein.2 Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that, for the reasons set forth above, the Petition for an Advisory Opinion herein be, and, it hereby is, dismissed. 2 Ibid. 197 NLRB No. 81