Carroll Associates

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1990

300 N.L.R.B. 698 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

698
300 NLRB No. 80
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The annual gross rental revenues received from apartment buildings man-
aged by Realty Crown during the 12-month period preceding the filing of the
petition are alleged to be as follows: Hotel St. George in New York, New
York (in excess of $2 million); 1587 Carroll Street (in excess of $170,000);
1544–48 President Street, Brooklyn, New York (in excess of $120,000); 1014
Park Place, Brooklyn, New York (in excess of $60,000); 1553 Union Street,
Brooklyn, New York (in excess of $50,000).
2 See Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967); Penn-Keystone Realty
Corp., 191 NLRB 800 (1971).
3 A. J. Clarke Management Corp., 249 NLRB 1143 (1980).
4 The Board’s advisory opinion proceedings under Sec. 102.98(a) of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations are designed primarily to determine whether
an employer’s operations meet the Board’s ‘‘commerce’’ standards for assert-
ing jurisdiction. Accordingly, the instant advisory opinion is not intended to
express any view as to whether the Board would, under Sec. 9(c) of the Act,
certify the Union as the representative of the unit petitioned for in the SLRB
proceeding. See generally Sec. 101.40(e) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions.
Carroll Associates and Realty Crown Management
Corp., Petitioner and Factory & Building Em-
ployees Union, Local 187. Case AO–281
October 31, 1990
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
On September 25, 1990, Carroll Associates and Re-
alty Crown Management Corp. (Realty Crown) jointly
filed a petition for an advisory opinion with the Board,
pursuant to Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, seeking to determine whether
the Board would assert jurisdiction over their oper-
ations.
In pertinent part, the petition alleges as follows:
1. There is currently pending before the New York
State Labor Relations Board (the SLRB) a petition—
Case No. SE-57666—filed by Factory & Building Em-
ployees Union, Local 187 (the Union) seeking to be
certified as the bargaining representative for the super-
intendent employed by Carroll Associates at its apart-
ment building facility located at 1587 Carroll Street,
Brooklyn, New York.
2. Realty Crown is managing agent for several resi-
dential apartment buildings in the City of New York,
including the facility at 1587 Carroll Street, Brooklyn,
New York, owned by Carroll Associates, where it per-
forms such services as operating, maintaining, and re-
pairing apartments, collecting rents from tenants, pur-
chasing supplies, and performing all financial record-
keeping and reporting obligations. It is also responsible
for the hiring and supervision of employees who per-
form the building services provided to tenants.
3. Realty Crown is a joint employer with Carroll
Associates and with the owners of the other residential
apartment facilities it manages. During the 12 months
preceding the filing of the petition, the total gross rent-
al revenues derived from the apartment facilities man-
aged by Realty Crown exceeded $500,0001 and, during
the same period, Realty Crown purchased goods, sup-
plies, commodities, and services valued in excess of
$50,000 which originated outside the State of New
York.
4. The Union neither admits nor denies the above
commerce data, and the SLRB has made no findings
with respect thereto.
5. There is no representation or unfair labor practice
proceeding involving the same dispute currently pend-
ing before the Board.
Although all parties have been served with a copy
of the petition for an advisory opinion, none has 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’s operations. The Board has established a
$500,000 discretionary standard for asserting jurisdic-
tion over residential apartments.2 In determining
whether an employer of this type satisfies its jurisdic-
tional standard, the Board’s practice is to aggregate the
gross revenues derived from all residential buildings
managed by the employer.3 As the petition here alleges
that the total gross revenues derived from the residen-
tial properties managed and controlled by Realty
Crown exceeds $500,000, assuming as alleged that it
is a joint employer with respect to those properties,
Realty Crown clearly satisfies the Board’s discre-
tionary jurisdictional standard. Further, as the petition
alleges that Realty Crown’s out-of-state purchases ex-
ceeds $50,000, Realty Crown also satisfies the Board’s
statutory jurisdictional standard.
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based on
the foregoing allegations and assumptions, the Board
would assert jurisdiction over the Petitioner’s oper-
ations.4