In our prior opinion we directed that defendant file a petition for an advisory opinion with the National Labor Relations Board (N.L.R.B.) with a response thereafter to be filed by defendant. We ruled that:
If the advisory opinion of the Board concludes that it would assert jurisdiction over the dispute, then the court will enter an order reversing the judgment below. However, if the Board concludes that it would not assert jurisdiction, * * * then we shall enter an order affirming the judgment appealed from. We shall do so because we are satisfied that none of the other six points argued by defendant, which we shall discuss, would warrant a reversal of the judgment. [122 N.J. Super. at 273]
Pursuant to our direction defendant filed a petition for an advisory opinion with the N.L.R.B. on February 22, 1973. Plaintiff filed an answer thereto on March 1, 1973. On March 5, 1973 the Regional Director for Region 22 of
the N.L.R.B. filed a motion to intervene, and on March 12, 1973 defendant filed a response to the Regional Director's motion and to plaintiff's answer.
Because the "Advisory Opinion" of the N.L.R.B., dated June 14, 1973, refers thereto, we interpolate to comment that the Regional Director's motion referred to two cases involving defendant Archdiocese which he had had before him and the "commerce" information with respect to the Archdiocese which he had then obtained.
The first case was instituted by a petition filed on March 17, 1969 by John Tiedemann Incorporated alleging that it performed services valued in excess of $50,000 a year for the Archdiocese and charging that a painters' union was engaging in unlawful picketing. The case was closed by an "informal settlement agreement to which the Archdiocese was not a party."
The second case was instituted on April 16, 1972 by a petition filed by a cemetery workers' union claiming to represent employees of the Archdiocese employed at one of the cemeteries owned by it. The Regional Director's motion recited the information he had then obtained as to the activities, revenues and purchases of the Archdiocese and then concluded:
As a result of the investigation, and noting that the cemetery activities, including limitation of burials to Roman Catholics and members of their families, were intimately connected with the religious activities of the Roman Catholic Church, it was concluded that it would not effectuate the purposes of the Act for the Board to assert its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the undersigned dismissed the petition on April 27, 1972. Petitioner did not appeal.
On June 14, 1973 the N.L.R.B. entered an order, captioned "Advisory Opinion," in which, after noting that the Regional Director's motion to intervene "set forth commerce information developed in the course of his investigation of the unfair labor practice charge in Case 22-CP-126 and the representation petition in Case 22-RC-1289," it granted his motion.
The Advisory Opinion then detailed a history of the litigation between the parties, as well as a summary of defendant's activities and its ...