3900 MCP Owners Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 1015 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1015
313 NLRB No. 177
3900 MCP OWNERS CORP.
1 The Petitioner listed Finsbury Management, Inc. in the caption of
its petition but thereafter made no reference to Finsbury. Moreover,
the petition states that ‘‘Petitioner 3900 MCP Owners Corp. is the
Employer.’’ Accordingly, we make no findings with respect to
Finsbury Management.
2 The Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
3 See Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967) (residential apart-
ments), and Imperial House Condominium, 279 NLRB 1225 (1986),
affd. 831 F.2d 999 (11th Cir. 1987) (condominiums and coopera-
tives). We assume that the ‘‘residential premises’’ referred to in the
petition is one of these types of residential buildings.
4 The Board has traditionally aggregated the gross revenues de-
rived from all residential buildings managed by an employer in de-
termining whether the Employer satisfies the Board’s discretionary
standard. See, e.g., Mandel Management Co., 229 NLRB 1121
(1977).
3900 MCP Owners Corp. and Finsbury Manage-
ment, Inc.1 and Local 32E, Service Employees
International Union, AFL–CIO. Case AO–311
March 31, 1994
ADVISORY OPINION
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND
BROWNING
Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, on February 16, 1994, 3900 MCP Owners Corp.
and Finsbury Management, Inc. filed a petition for Ad-
visory Opinion as to whether the Board would assert
jurisdiction over 3900 MCP Owners Corp. In pertinent
part, the petition alleges as follows:
1. An unfair labor practice charge filed by the Union
in Case No. SU–58602 is currently pending before the
New York State Labor Relations Board (the State
Board).
2. The Petitioner, 3900 MCP Owners Corp., is the
Employer at 3900 Manhattan College Parkway, Bronx,
New York 10471. The Petitioner is engaged in the real
estate business and manages and controls the residen-
tial premises located at 3900 Manhattan College Park-
way, Bronx, New York, which generates gross reve-
nues in excess of $250,000 annually. In addition, the
Petitioner manages and controls a number of residen-
tial premises located in New York, including 590 Fort
Washington Avenue, New York, which generates reve-
nues in excess of $600,000 annually. The Petitioner’s
out-of-state oil purchases exceed $40,000 annually.
3. The Petitioner is unaware whether the Union ad-
mits or denies the aforesaid commerce data, and the
State Board has not made any findings with respect
thereto.
4. There are no representation or unfair labor prac-
tice proceedings involving this labor dispute pending
before 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
Employer. The Board has established a $500,000 dis-
cretionary standard for asserting jurisdiction over resi-
dential buildings.3 As the Petitioner alleges that its
total annual income from the residential premises it
manages and controls exceeds $850,000, assuming the
Petitioner is a single employer with respect to those
premises, the Petitioner clearly satisfies the Board’s
discretionary standard.4 As the Petitioner further al-
leges that its annual out-of-state oil purchases exceed
$40,000, 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.