Bhl Associates

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 6, 1984

272 N.L.R.B. 1050 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
BHL Associates and Service Employees Internation
at Union, Local 32B-32J, AFL-CIO Case
A0-249
6 November 1984
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN HUNTER AND DENNIS
A petition and affidavit were filed on 11 June
1984 by BHL Associates the Petitioner for an ad
visory opinion in conformity with Sections 102 98
and 102 99 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations seeking to determine
whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over
the Petitioner s operation Subsequently the Pen
boner filed a brief in support of its petition
In pertinent part the submissions allege as fol
lows
(1) There is pending before the New York State
Labor Relations Board the State Board a Peti
tion for Investigation and Certification of Repre
sentative Case No SE 54973 filed by Service
Employees International Union Local 32B-32J
AFL-CIO the Union
(2) The Petitioner is a partnership authorized to
do business in the State of New York where it is
engaged exclusively in the ownership manage
ment and operation of a commercial office build
ing located at 547 West 27th Street New York
New York The Petitioner leases office and corn
mercial space to approximately 11 1 commercial en
terpnses The building was purchased by the Peti
toner about May 1983 The Petitioner s fiscal year
commences 1 January of each calendar year and
ends on the following 31 December During calen
dar year 1983 the Petitioner received gross reve
nues in excess of $300 000 Based on executed
leases with its tenants the Petitioner alleges that
during calendar year 1984 it will receive in excess
of $400 000 in rent and other payments from its
tenants The affidavit submitted by the Petitioner
shows that its 1984 rental income from six of its
present tenants will exceed $200 000 and that each
tenant s rent will exceed $25 000 per year In addi
The Petitioner alleges that the space represented by the 11th tenant
in the building was vacated about 1 May 1984 and that the tenant had
been paying an annual rental under its expired lease in the aggregate
amount of $91 667 It is anticipated that in view of the spiraling commer
mai real estate market in Manhattan New York City the gross annual
rental income from the vacant space will exceed the amount paid by the
previous tenant
lion the Petitioner alleges that each tenant expends
substantially in excess of $50 000 per year in pur
chases of goods and materials directly from sources
outside the State of New York
(3) The Union neither admits nor denies the
commerce data and the State Board has made no
findings with respect thereto
(4) There is no representation or, unfair labor
practice proceeding involving this labor dispute
pending before this Board
(5) Although all parties were served with a copy
of the petition for advisory opinion none has filed
a response as permitted , by the Board s Rules and
Regulations
On the basis of the above the Board is of the
opinion that
(1) The Petitioner is a partnership engaged exclu
sively in the ownership management and oper
ation of a commercial office building located in
New York New York
(2) The Board has asserted jurisdiction over em
ployers engaged in ownership and management of
office buildings where they receive annual gross
revenues of $100 000 or more of which at least
$25 000 is derived from enterprises whose oper
ations meet any of the Board s jurisdictional stand
ards other than its indirect nonretail standards 2
(3) During calendar year 1983 the Petitioner re
ceived gross revenues in excess of $300 000 Based
on computations calculations and projections of
rent and other fees payable to the Petitioner pursu
ant to written executed leases with tenants cover
ing calendar year 1984 it will receive in excess of
$100 000 and at least $25 000 of such sum will be
derived from any one of six tenants which during
1984 will expend substantially in excess of $50 000
in purchases of goods and materials directly from
sources outside the State of New York As the Pe
titioner s operation satisfies the requirements of the
office building standard as set forth above we
conclude that it would effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction
Accordingly the parties are advised that under
Section 102 103 of the Board s Rules and Regula
lions on the allegations presented herein the
Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petition
er s operation with respect to labor disputes cogni
zable under Sections 8 9 and 10 of the Act
2 Mistletoe Operating Co 122 NLRB 1534 (1959) Gulf Building Corp
159 NLRB 1621 (1966)
272 NLRB No 163