135-45 West Kingsbridge Avenue Assoc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1990

300 N.L.R.B. 946 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

946
300 NLRB No. 127
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 See Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967), and Imperial House Con-
dominium, 279 NLRB 1225 (1986), affd. 831 F.2d 999 (11th Cir. 1987) (es-
tablishing $500,000 standard for residential apartments and for condominiums
and cooperatives, respectively); and Mistletoe Operating Co., 122 NLRB 1534
(1959) (holding that jurisdiction will be asserted over commercial office build-
ings when the employer’s gross annual revenue amounts to $100,000, of which
$25,000 is derived from organizations whose operations meet any of the
Board’s standards exclusive of the indirect outflow or indirect inflow stand-
ards).
2 See Mandel Management Corp., 248 NLRB 186 (1980). In so finding, we
have assumed that the Employer is a single employer with respect to the oper-
ations included in its commerce data.
3 The Board’s advisory opinion proceedings under Sec. 102.98(a) of the
Board’s Rules are designed primarily to determine whether an employer’s op-
erations meet the Board’s ‘‘commerce’’ standards for asserting jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the instant Advisory Opinion is not intended to express any view
as to whether the Board would certify the Union as representative of the peti-
tioned-for unit under Sec. 9(c) of the Act. See generally Sec. 101.40(e) of the
Board’s Rules.
135–45 West Kingsbridge Avenue Assoc., and Time
Equities, Inc. and Service Employees Inter-
national Union, Local 32E, AFL–CIO. Case
AO–283
December 21, 1990
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, on November 14, 1990, 135–45 West
Kingsbridge Avenue Assoc., and Time Equities, Inc.
(the Employer) 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 proceeding, Case 75770, is cur-
rently pending before the New York State Labor Rela-
tions Board (SLRB) in which Service Employees Inter-
national Union, Local 32E, AFL–CIO (the Union) is
seeking to represent the superintendent of a building
located at 135–45 West Kingsbridge Road, Bronx,
New York.
2. The Employer is engaged in the business of man-
aging real estate. The Employer manages the 135–45
West Kingsbridge Road building, a 59-unit residential
apartment building in which 7 commercial enterprises
operate, and supervises, directs, and pays the building
superintendent.
3. During the past calendar year, the Employer had
total gross revenues equaling or exceeding $1 million,
and purchased materials or services valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from outside the State of New York.
4. The aforesaid commerce data has been neither ad-
mitted nor denied by the Union, and has not been con-
sidered by the State Board.
5. There is no representation or unfair labor practice
proceeding involving the same dispute pending before
the Board.
Although all parties were served with a copy of the
petition for advisory opinion, none filed a response as
permitted by Section 102.101 of the Board’s Rules.
Having duly considered the matter, the Board is of
the opinion that it would assert jurisdiction over the
Employer. Although it cannot be determined from the
allegations in the petition whether the Employer’s op-
erations would separately satisfy either the residential
or the commercial standard established by the Board
for employers that own and/or manage real estate,1 in-
asmuch as the petition alleges that the Employer’s
gross revenues exceeded $1 million in the past cal-
endar year, and that its out-of-state purchases of mate-
rials or services exceeded $50,000 during the same pe-
riod, we find that it would effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Employer.2
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based on
the foregoing allegations and assumptions, the Board
would assert jurisdiction over the Employer.3
MEMBER OVIATT, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I would require the Em-
ployer to submit further information regarding its real
estate operations before granting the petition and
issuing an advisory opinion. Cf. Century Assets, 280
NLRB 1352 (1986).