3280 Realty Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1991

301 N.L.R.B. 1212 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

1212
301 NLRB No. 151
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 See Parkview 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 res-
idential buildings.
2 The Board has traditionally aggregated the gross revenues derived from all
residential buildings managed by an employer in determining whether the em-
ployer satisfies the Board’s discretionary standard. See, e.g., Mandel Manage-
ment Co., 229 NLRB 1121 (1977).
In the matter of 3280 Realty Corp. Case AO–285
February 28, 1991
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
On January 28, 1991, the Petitioner, 3280 Realty
Corporation, filed a petition for an advisory opinion
pursuant to Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National
Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations seek-
ing to determine whether the Board would assert juris-
diction over its operations.
In pertinent part the petition alleges as follows:
1. There is currently pending before the New York
State Labor Relations Board (the SLRB) an unfair
labor practice charge, Case No. SU–57809, filed by
Local 32E, Service Employees International Union,
AFL–CIO (the Union).
2. The general nature of the Petitioner’s business is
real estate. The Petitioner manages and controls several
residential premises located in Bronx, New York, in-
cluding the premises located at 3280 Rochambeau Av-
enue and 3315 Hull Avenue which, respectively, gen-
erate in excess of $433,000 and $256,000 per year in
income. The Petitioner’s combined income exceeds
$689,000 per year. Its out-of-state oil purchases exceed
$30,000 per year.
3. The Petitioner is unaware whether the Union ad-
mits or denies the above commerce data, and the
SLRB has made no findings with respect thereto.
4. There is no representation or unfair labor practice
proceeding involving the same labor 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 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 dis-
cretionary standard for asserting jurisdiction over resi-
dential buildings.1 As the Petitioner alleges that its
total annual income from the residential premises it
manages and controls exceeds $689,000, assuming the
Petitioner is a single employer with respect to those
premises, the Petitioner clearly satisfies the Board’s
discretionary standard.2 As the Petitioner further al-
leges 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 Petitioner.