2229 Associates

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1995

316 N.L.R.B. 821 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

821
316 NLRB No. 137
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 See Uptown Associates & Samaroo Management, 307 NLRB
1286 (1992).
2 The Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
3 See 373–381 South Broadway Associates, 304 NLRB 1108
(1991), and cases cited therein.
4 See Uptown Associates, supra.
5 The Board’s advisory opinion proceedings under Sec. 102.98(a)
are designed primarily to determine whether an employer’s oper-
ations meet the Board’s ‘‘commerce’’ standards for asserting juris-
diction. Accordingly, the instant Advisory Opinion is not intended
to express any view whether the Board would certify the Union as
representative of the unit involved here under Sec. 9(c) of the Act.
See generally Sec. 101.40 of the Board’s Rules.
2229 Associates and Samaroo Management, Peti-
tioner and Service Employees International
Union, Local 32E, AFL–CIO. Case AO–320
March 23, 1995
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS COHEN
AND TRUESDALE
Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, on February 16, 1995, 2229 Associates (2229)
and Samaroo Management (jointly, the Employers),
filed a Petition for Advisory Opinion as to whether the
Board would assert jurisdiction over their operations.
In pertinent part, the petition alleges as follows:
1. A proceeding, Case SU–58858, is currently pend-
ing before the New York State Employment Relations
Board (NYSERB) in which the Service Employees
International Union, Local 32E, AFL–CIO (the Union)
claims that 2229 has refused to bargain with the Union
in violation of Section 704 of the New York State
Labor Relations Act since September 1994, at a resi-
dential apartment building owned by 2229 and man-
aged by Samaroo Management, located at 2229
Creston Avenue, Bronx, New York.
2. Samaroo Management supervises and directs the
terms and conditions of employment at the building as
well as the day-to-day activities of the single employee
employed at the building. Samaroo Management also
formulates and implements all of the personnel policies
applicable to that employee and maintains payroll
records for and pays the employee. Samaroo Manage-
ment and 2229 are jointly controlled and directed by
Philip Samaroo, the proprietor and general partner, re-
spectively, of Samaroo Management and 2229.
3. Samaroo Management has gross annual revenues
in excess of $1 million and annually purchases mate-
rials or services valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from outside the State of New York.1
4. The Employers are unaware whether the Union
admits or denies the aforesaid commerce data and the
NYSERB has not made any findings with respect
thereto.
5. There are no representation or unfair labor prac-
tice proceedings involving the Employer pending be-
fore the Board.
Although all parties were served with a copy of the
Petition for Advisory Opinion, no response was filed.
Having duly considered the matter,2 the Board is of
the opinion that it would assert jurisdiction over the
Employers. It is well established that the commerce
data of joint or single employers may be combined for
jurisdictional purposes.3 Here, the petition alleges that
the Employers are jointly controlled and directed by
Philip Samaroo, the proprietor and general partner, re-
spectively, of Samaroo Management and 2229. Thus,
given that Samaroo Management’s commerce data
alone clearly satisfied the Board’s jurisdictional stand-
ard,4 assuming that the Employers are in fact a joint
or single employer at the subject building, we find that
jurisdiction may properly be asserted over the Employ-
ers under the Board’s current standards.
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based on
the foregoing allegations and assumptions, the Board
would assert jurisdiction over the Employer.5