Century Assets

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1986

280 N.L.R.B. 1352 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter of David Landau , d/b/a Century
Assets. Case AO-253
31 July 1986
ORDER GRANTING MOTION AND
SUPPLEMENTAL ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN, BABSON , AND STEPHENS
A petition was filed on 6 March 1986 by David
Landau, d/b/a Century Assets, the Petitioner, for
an advisory 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
its operations.
In pertinent part the petition alleged as follows:
(1) There is pending before the New York State
Labor Relations Board (State Board) a representa-
tion petition , Case No. SE-55763, filed by Local
32E, Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO (the Union) by which the Union seeks
to be certified as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of an employee of the Petitioner at its
2200 Tiebout Avenue, Bronx , New York location.
(2) The general nature of the Petitioner's busi-
ness is real estate . The Petitioner owns, operates,
and controls the premises located at 2200 Tiebout
Avenue, Bronx, New York, which generates in
excess of $300,000 per year in income and business
ventures. Additionally, the Petitioner owns, oper-
ates, and controls premises located at 351 Ocean
Avenue, which generates over $200,000 per year in
rental and business ventures, and has partnership
interests in other buildings in the New York City
area from which the combined income exceeds
$2,500,000 per year.
(3) The Petitioner is unaware whether the Union
admits or denies the aforesaid 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 the Board.
On 25 April 1986 the Board issued an Advisory
Opinion finding that the Petitioner 's allegations
were insufficient for the Board to make a meaning-
ful jurisdictional determination.' The Board specifi-
r Century Assets, 279 NLRB 511 (1986).
cally noted that the Petitioner had failed to identify
the nature of its "real estate" operations.
On 6 May 1986 the Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration . The Petitioner alleged therein that
the business ventures referred to in its petition are
residential houses; that those business ventures,
combined, exceed over $500,000 per year; and that
the Petitioner's out-of-state oil purchases exceed
$30,000 per year.
On 11 June 1986 the Board issued a Notice to
Show Cause why the Petitioner's motion should
not be denied on the grounds that the Petitioner's
allegations remained insufficient for the Board to
determine whether it would assert jurisdiction.
On 24 June 1986 the Petitioner submitted a letter
responding to the Notice to Show Cause. This
letter indicates that the premises identified in the
petition as being located at 2200 Tiebout Avenue,
Bronx, New York, and 351 Ocean Avenue, Brook-
lyn, New York, are actually residential apartment
buildings, and that the amount specified in the
motion as being "over $500,000 per year" consti-
tutes the combined annual rental income to the Pe-
titioner from those buildings.
Although all parties were served with a copy of
the request for advisory opinion, the motion for re-
consideration , the Notice to Show Cause, and the
Petitioner's subsequent letter, none has filed a re-
sponse as permitted by the Board's Rules and Reg-
ulations.
The Board having duly considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED that the Employer's motion for
reconsideration be granted. The Board has estab-
lished a $500,000 discretionary standard for assert-
ing jurisdiction over residential apartments.2 Based
on the Petitioner's most recent submission, it ap-
pears that this is the appropriate standard to apply
to the Petitioner's operations and, assuming that
the Petitioner is a single employer with respect to
its two apartment buildings, that it satisfies that
standard-3 Further, inasmuch as the Petitioner's al-
leged $30,000 per annum in out-of-state purchases
is more than de minimis, it also satisfies the Board's
statutory standard for asserting jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based
on the aforesaid allegations and assumptions, the
Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petitioner.
2 Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967)
The Board has a longstanding practice of aggregating gross revenues
derived from all apartment buildings operated by an employer in deter-
mining whether the Board would assert jurisdiction in a labor dispute
arising at any one of them . See, e .g., R & C Management Co., 264 NLRB
873 (1982); Marlake Associates, 231 NLRB 335 (1977)
280 NLRB No. 155