# In Re the Employees of Student Services, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 10, 1981 · 495 Pa. 42

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634558

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the EMPLOYEES OF STUDENT SERVICES, INC., Edinboro State College, Edinboro, Pennsylvania. Appeal of RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 880 (Formerly 1538) at No. 186. Appeal of PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at No. 187
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 10, 1981
- **Citations:** 495 Pa. 42; 432 A.2d 189; 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2669; 1981 Pa. LEXIS 852
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kauffman
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Kauffman, Nix
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634558

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that, whenever possible, each word in a statutory provision is to be given meaning and not to be treated as surplusage

## Opinion text

*54 KAUFFMAN, Justice,
concurring.
While I agree with the result reached by the majority, I cannot subscribe to the view that all non-profit organizations are public employers within the meaning of Section 301(1) of the Public Employee Relations Act (“PERA”), Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, No. 195, art. III § 301, 43 P.S. § 1101.301(1). Rather, I would adopt the reasoning of the Commonwealth Court in Brownsville General Hospital v. Pa. Labor Relations Board, 15 Pa.Cmwlth. 428, 433-34 , 325 A.2d 662, 665 (1974):
“[T]o adopt such a construction [as the majority’s] would necessitate what we believe to be the unintended result of encompassing many private employers who have chosen the non-profit form of conducting their business and who receive no governmental support. ...”
Thus, I believe that “any non-profit organization or institution” must first receive “grants or appropriations from local, State or Federal governments” to come within the ambit of the PERA.
The issue as I see it, then, is whether Student Services, Inc.’s rent-free use of Commonwealth-owned real estate constitutes a “grant or appropriation” within the meaning of Section SOlil). 1
Student Services, Inc. operates exclusively for Edinboro State College by providing services for students not offered by the college itself, and its operations are housed in buildings owned by the Commonwealth. As correctly observed by Judge Craig in his dissenting opinion below, “[T]he use of those premises is essential to the functioning and business of Student Services, Inc. . . . By thus beneficially sharing the use and occupancy of that real estate with the state college, [Student Services, Inc.] is receiving a grant or appropriation *55 from the Commonwealth just as fully as the state college itself is thus publicly supported by being provided with the real estate.” In the Matter of Student Services, Inc. 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 220, 224 , 411 A.2d 569, 571 (1980) (Craig, J., dissenting).
Accordingly, I would hold that Student Services, Inc.’s rent-free use of real property owned by the Commonwealth constitutes a “grant or appropriation” within the meaning of Section 301(1) and, thus, that it is a “public employer” subject to the provisions of the PERA.
FLAHERTY, J., joined in this concurring opinion.
. It has been stipulated that Student Services, Inc. is a non-profit corporation.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634558. Public record. Not legal advice.