Allstate Realty Associates

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1989

294 N.L.R.B. 1101 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

ALLSTATE REALTY ASSOCIATES
In the matter of Allstate Realty Associates. Case
AO-268
June 13, 1989
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT, HIGGINS, AND DEVANEY
Pursuant to Section 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regu-
lations, on May 15, 1989, Allstate Realty Associ-
ates (the Petitioner) filed a petition for an advisory
opinion as to 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) two
unfair labor practice charges, Cases SU-57157 and
SU-57167, filed by Local 32B, 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
the residential premises located at 310 Beverly
Road, Brooklyn, New York, which generates in
excess of $429,000 per year in income. Additional-
ly, the Petitioner manages and controls residential
premises located at 415 Beverly Road, Brooklyn,
New York, which generates in excess of $700,000;
at 50 East 19th Street, Brooklyn, New York, which
generates in excess of $260,000; and at 1299 Ocean
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, which generates in
excess of $230,000. The Petitioner's combined
income exceeds $1 million per year. The Petition-
er's out-of-state oil purchases exceed $30,000 per
year.
1101
3. The Petitioner is unaware whether the Union
admits or denies the aforesaid commerce data and
the SLRB had made no findings with respect
thereto.
4. 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 re-
sponse 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 juris-
diction over residential buildings.' As the Petition-
er alleges that it receives over $1 million in total
annual imcome from the residential premises that it
manages and controls, assuming the Petitioner is a
single employer with respect to those premises, the
Petitioner clearly satisfies that standard.2 As the
Petitioner further alleges that its annual out-of-state
purchases exceed $30,000, the Petitioner also clear-
ly satisfies the Board's statutory standard for assert-
ing jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based
on the foregoing allegations and assumptions, the
Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petitioner.
' See Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967) (residential apartments),
and Imperial House Condominium, 279 NLRB 1225 (1986), affil 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
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)
294 NLRB No. 85