Mount Holyoke College

730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mount Holyoke College and International Brother- hood of Police Officers, a/w National Association of Government Employees. Case AO-151 December 5, 1973 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed on September 27, 1973, by Mount Holyoke College, herein called the Employer, for an Advisory Opinion, in conformity with Sections 102.98 and' 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, seeking to determine whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer with respect to the dispute underlying the representation case pending before the Massachu- setts Labor Relations Commission, herein called the Commission. On October 3, 1973, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, a/w National Associ- ation of Government Employees, herein called the Association, filed a response to the petition for an Advisory Opinion. On October 11, 1973, the Region- al Director for the Board's Region 1 filed a Motion To Intervene, setting forth commerce data concern- ing the Employer, which was disclosed by his investigation of three representation cases, 1-RC-12143, 1-RC-12345, and 1-RC-12947, filed with him.' Thereafter, pursuant to Board permission, the Employer and the Association, on October 24 and 25, 1973, respectively, each filed briefs in support of their positions on the jurisdictional issue. In pertinent part, the petition, response, interven- tion, and brief allege as follows: 1. On June 21, 1973, the Association filed a Petition for Investigation and Certification of Repre- sentative with the Commission (Case CR-3397), seeking to represent a unit of approximately five security guards employed by the Employer to patrol its college campus in South Hadley, Massachusetts, and to enforce its rules. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it was outside the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction. 2. The Employer, a nonprofit Massachusetts corporation, operates a liberal arts college in South Hadley, Massachusetts. Its gross annual revenues from all sources for unrestricted use (excluding only contributions which, because of limitations by the grantor, are not available for use for operating expenses) exceed $1 million and its annual purchases of goods and materials directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts exceed $50,000. 3. Although the Commission does not appear to have made any findings with respect to the aforesaid commerce data, the Association does not dispute this data which the Employer supplied. 4. There are no representation or unfair labor practice proceedings pending which involve the same labor dispute between the Employer or the Associa- tion and only Case 1-RC-12947, involving the Employer, is now pending in Region 1. 5. Although served with a copy of the petition for Advisory Opinion, no response, as provided by the Board's Rules, has been filed by the Commission. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that: 1. The Employer is a nonprofit educational institution operating a liberal arts college at South Hadley, Massachusetts. 2. The current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over the operations of any nonprofit college or university is a gross annual revenue (excluding only contributions which, 'because of limitations by the grantor, are not available for use for operating expenses) of not less than $1 million.2 The Employer's gross annual revenues from all sources for unrestricted use exceed $1 million and satisfy this monetary standard while the more-than- $50,000 out-of-state purchases establish the Board's statutory jurisdiction. 3. While both the Employer and Association agree that the Employer's operations come within the Board's jurisdiction, they disagree as to whether the Board has jurisdiction over the labor dispute which gave rise to the proceedings before the Commission and to the instant petition. The Association argues that, under the precedent in Massachusetts Society for, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 203 NLRB No. 22, the Board must decline to assert jurisdiction herein because of the employees' dual function as security guards for the Employer and as special police officers appointed by the town of South Hadley, while the Employer, in support of the assertion of jurisdiction, contends that the cited precedent is factually distinguishable from the situation herein. In the Massachusetts SPCA case, the Association filed a representation petition seeking to represent employ- ees of the Massachusetts SPCA who were designated as law enforcement officers. The Board found that the employees in question performed their duties to a significant degree on behalf of the Commonwealth and were under its control and that the Common- wealth and the Massachusetts SPCA were joint employers of the employees. Concluding that Section 2(2) of the Act foreclosed the assertion of jurisdiction therein, the Board dismissed the petition therein. It has been well established that our Advisory Opinion proceedings are designed primarily to determine 1 The Motion To Intervene is hereby granted. 2 Sec. 103.1 of the Board's Rules. 207 NLRB No. 121 MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE questions as to the applicability of the Board's discretionary jurisdictional standards to an employ- er's commerce operations .3 The entire submission by the Employer and the Association as to whether the Massachusetts SPCA case governed herein raises the basic issue of whether Section 2(2) of the Act precludes the assertion of jurisdiction-an issue which does not fall within the intendment of the Advisory Opinion rules.4 The - Board is of the view that questions raised by such an issue can best be resolved at a full hearing in an appropriate Board proceeding where all interested parties would have the opportunity to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to file briefs, to argue 731 orally, and to participate to the extent necessary to present their positions .5 These procedures are neces- sary to enable the Board to make an informed judgment on the jurisdictional issue which has been raised by the parties herein. Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules, that, on the allegations herein, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with respect to disputes cognizable under Section 8, 9, and 10 of the Act, but it expresses no opinion as to the jurisdictional issue raised by the dispute concerning the representation of the Employer's security guards herein. 3 See, e.g., The Children's Village, Inc, 180 NLRB 1044, and cases cited. 5 See, e.g., National Bulk Carriers, Inc and UniverseTankshius, Inc., 134 4 Ibid NLRB 1186.