1113 Holding Ltd

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1988

291 N.L.R.B. 938 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

938 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter of Martin Meyer d/b/a 1113 Holding
Ltd Case AO-265
1
November 30 1988
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS
Pursuant to Sections 102 98(a) and 102 99 of the
National Labor Relations Board s Rules and Regu
lations on October 24 1988 Martin Meyer d/b/a
1113 Holding Ltd (the Petitioner) filed a petition
for an advisory opinion as to whether the Board
would assert jurisdiction over its operations
In pertinent part the petition alleges as follows
1 A representation petition (Case SE-56916) is
currently pending before the New York State
Labor Relations Board (the State Board) in which
Local 32E Service Employees International
Union AFL-CIO (the Union) seeks to be certified
as the collective bargaining representative of an
employee of the Petitioner at its 2332-34 Creston
Avenue Bronx New York location
2 The general nature of the Petitioners business
is real estate The Petitioner manages and controls
the residential premises located at 2332-34 Creston
Avenue Bronx New York which generates in
excess of $160 000 a year in income Additionally
the Petitioner manages and controls residential
premises located at 15 Featherbed Lane Bronx
New York which generates in excess of $180 000
and 1940 Andrews Avenue Bronx New York
which generates in excess of $190 000 The coin
bined income exceeds $530,000 a year Petitioner s
out of state oil purchases exceed $30 000 a year
3 The Petitioner is unaware whether the Union
admits or 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 dispute
currently pending before the Board
Although all parties were served with a copy of
the petition for advisory opinion none has filed a
response thereto as permitted by Section 102 101 of
the Board s Rules and Regulations
Having duly considered the matter, the Board is
of the opinion that it would assert jurisdiction over
the Petitioner The Board has established a
$500 000 discretionary standard for asserting funs
diction over residential buildings i As the Petition
er alleges that its total annual income from the resi
dential premises it manages and controls exceeds
$530 000 assuming the Petitioner is a single em
ployer with respect to those premises the Petition
er clearly satisfies the Board s discretionary stand
and 2 As the Petitioner further alleges that its
annual out of state purchases exceed $30 000 the
Petitioner also clearly satisfies the Board s statutory
standard for asserting jurisdiction
Accordingly the parties are advised that, based
on the foregoing allegations and assumptions the
Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petition
er 3
' See Parkinew Gardens 166 NLRB 697 (1967) (residential apartments)
and Imperial House Condominium 279 NLRB 1225 (1986) affd 831 F 2d
999 (11th Cir 1987) (condominiums and cooperatives ) We assume that
the residential premises referred to in the petition are one of these
types of residential buildings Member Johansen who dissented in Impen
a! House adheres to his position there
2 The Board has traditionally aggregated the gross revenues derived
from all residential buildings managed by an employer in determining
whether the employer satisfies the Board s discretionary standard See
e g Mandel Management Co 229 NLRB 1121 (1977)
3 The Board s advisory opinion proceedings under Sec 102 98(a) of the
Board s Rules and Regulations are designed primarily to determine
whether an employers operations meet the Boards commerce stand
ards for asserting jurisdiction Accordingly the instant Advisory Opinion
is not intended to express any view whether the Board would certify the
Union as representative of the petitioned for unit under Sec 9(c) of the
Act See generally Sec 101 40(e) of the Boards Rules and Regulations
291 NLRB No 131