Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board and Pennsylvania Social Services Union Local #668 (AFL-CIO, SEIU) and Urban League of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh Community Day Care). Case AO- 154 February 21, 1974 ADVISORY OPINION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO The petition herein was filed on November 3, 1973, by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, herein called the State Board, in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, seeking an Advisory Opinion concerning its jurisdiction in this matter. In pertinent part, the petition alleges that: 1. There are presently pending before the State Board two petitions for representation, involving the employees of Urban League of Pittsburgh (Pitts- burgh Community Day Care), herein called the Employer, filed by Pennsylvania Social Services Union Local #668, herein called the Union. The petition in Case PERA-R-3864-W was filed on August 20, 1973, while the petition in Case PE- RA-R-4054 was filed on October 17, 1973. The State Board has taken no definitive action with respect to the petitions. 2. The Employer, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsyl- vania, is a nonprofit corporation whose main function is to provide an equal opportunity project for preschool-age minority children in the Pittsburgh community to enable them to compete as equals with their peers when they enter the public school system. This function is performed by the Employer through 23 day care centers, involving approximately 345 children between the ages of 3 and 5. The day care centers provide educational programs for the child- ren and some health and social services to the children and their families. The Employer's annual income from various sources, including the Federal and state governments, exceeds $1 million. 3. The Union neither admits nor denies the aforesaid commerce data and the State Board does I See Peter Mills v Board of Education of :he District of Columbia, 348 F Supp 866 (D C D C , 1972), in which the court noted and emphasized the relationship of equal opportunity to public school education 2 Sec 14(c)(I) of the Act provides that "The Board, in its discretion, may, by rule of decision or by published rules adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute involving any class or category of employees, where, in the opinion of the Board, the effect of such labor dispute on commerce is not not appear to have made findings with respect thereto. 4. The Employer contends that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the State Board because it is not a public employer within the meaning of Section 301(1) of the Public Employee Relations Act 195 and that it has an annual income in excess of $ 1 million. 5. There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same labor dispute pending before this Board. 6. Although served with a copy of the petition, no response as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations has been filed by any of the parties. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that: 1. The Employer, a nonprofit corporation located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is mainly engaged in providing, through the operation of day care centers, preschool-age minority children with an equal opportunity project which will enable them to compete with their peers when they enter public school. The Employer's operations appear to be in the nature of a local "head start" program, an adjunct to the public school system in Pittsburgh.' 2. Notwithstanding the fact that the Employer's annual income exceed -, $1 million and that funds are received from the Federal and state governments, the basic thrust of the Employer's activities in preparing preschool-age minority children to compete equally with their peers after they enter public school is centered mainly upon the local public school system. Its activities, therefore, are essentially local in character and any labor dispute in conjunction therewith would not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. Under all of these circum- stances, we are of the opinion that pursuant to the provisions of Section 14(c)(1) 2 of the Act, the Board should exercise its discretion by refusing to assert jurisdiction over the operations of the Employer.3 Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations that, on the allegations presented herein, the Board would not assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. sufficiently substantial to warrant the exercise of itsjurisdiction Provided, That the Board shall not decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute over which it would assert jurisdiction under the standards prevailing upon August 1, 1959" 3 See Center for Urban Education, 189 NLRB 858, where the Board advised that it would refuse to assert jurisdiction over an employer engaged in research and development in aid of public school institutions 209 NLRB No. 33