Legal Services for Northwestern Pennsylvania

688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Legal Services for Northwestern Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Social Services Union Local No. 668, SEW, AFGCIO. Case AO- 193 July 7, 1977 ADVISORY OPINION A petition and brief in support thereof were filed on December 20, 1976, and January 6, 1977, respectively, by Legal Services for Northwestern Pennsylvania, herein called the Employer, for an advisory opinion, in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, seeking to determine whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations. In pertinent part the petition and brief allege as follows: 1. There is pending before the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, herein called the State Board, a representation proceeding, docket PERA- R-9041-W, filed by Pennsylvania Social Services Union Local No. 668, SEIU, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, seeking to be certified as the representative of certain employees employed by Employer.1 2. The Employer is a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to provide legal services of a civil nature to eligible low-income persons in 12 counties in Northwestern Pennsylva- nia. Its business and affairs are managed by a board of trustees who are appointed from the various counties. The Employer is funded under a contract, negotiable annually, with the Pennsylvania Legal Services Center, which is a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation funded by the state and Federal govern- ments.* The Employer does not accept remuneration for its services from the clients it represents. Its budget consists only of necessary expenses required to further the purposes of the corporation. For fiscal year July 1, 1976, through June 30, 1977, the Employer's budget was $850,000. The Union also filed a representation petition with the National Labor Relations Board. By letter dated December 22, 1976, the Union notified the Board that it withdrew its petition filed on October 15, 1976. The contract between the parties requires the Employer to furnish services to only those clients who meet the state and Federal eligibility requirements of Title XX of the Social Security Act, enacted by Pub.L. 93- 647, effective October 1, 1975. The Employer derives 25 percent of its funds from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 75 percent from the Federal government. Foley, Hoag dl Eliot, 229 NLRB No. 80 (1977). Bodle, Fogel, et a/., 206 NLRB 5 12 (1973). J Sec. 1qc) states: (I) 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 employers, where, in the opinion of the Board, the effect 3. The Union neither admits nor denies the aforesaid commerce data and the state board has made no findings with respect thereto. 4. There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same labor dispute pending before this Board. 5. Although the parties have been served with a copy of this petition, no response, as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations, has been filed by any of them. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that: 1. The Employer is a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation which provides legal services of a civil nature to eligible low-income persons in 12 counties in Northwestern Pennsylvania. 2. The thrust of the Employer's petition and brief is that the Board should not assert jurisdiction over the Employer because it is nonprofit and noncom- mercial; because it is local and intrastate in charac- ter; and because it is a law firm. In a recent decision,3 the Board reconsidered its prior precedent in declining to assert jurisdiction over law firms.4 In overruling the Bodle decision, the Board in Foley concluded that law firms, as a class, do have a substantial impact on interstate commerce and asserted jurisdiction over them, as required by Section 1qc) of the Act.5 The Board's conclusion was prompted, in part, by the Goldfarb case6 in which the Supreme Court specifically rejected the view that "legal services, which are performed wholly intrastate, are essentially local in nature and there- fore a restraint [of trade] with respect to them can never substantially affect interstate commerce," and affirmatively stated "that the activities of lawyers play an important part in commercial intercourse, and that anticompetitive activities by lawyers may assert a restraint on commerce." Subsequent to Foley, the Board issued the Wayne County7 case in which the employer's operations are very similar to the operations of the Employer herein. In Wayne County the employer was a nonprofit corporation providing legal services to indigent of such labor dispute on commerce is not sufhiently substantial to warrant the exercise of its jurisdiction: 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 I, 1959. (2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent or bar any agency or the coum of any State or Territory (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rim, Guam, and the Virgin Islands), from assuming and asserting jurisdiction over labor disputes over which the Board declines, pursuant to paragraph (I) of this subsection, to assert jurisdiction. Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar Association, 95 S.Ct. 2004, 201 1, 2014 (19 15). ' Wayne County Neighborhoed Legal Services, Inc., 229 NLRB 1023 (1977). 230 NLRB No. 103 LEGAL SERVICES FOR NORTHWESTERN PA. 689 clients in Wayne County, Michigan. It was funded by the nonprofit Legal Services Corporation, which disbursed congressionally appropriated funds to local organizations offering legal assistance to the indigent. The Board found that the employer's operations were analogous to a private law firm and, citing Foley, supra, concluded that the employer's operations had a substantial impact on interstate commerce and asserted jurisdiction if the Board's monetary jurisdictional standards were satisfied.8 Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, based on the allegations herein made, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the operations of the Employer with respect to labor disputes cognizable under Sections 8,9, and 10 of the Act, if our monetary jurisdictional standards are satisfied. - * In deciding the Foley case, the Board did not set forth any monetary lurisdictional standard, but left such standard to be determined in the Hoard's posthearing decision.