Command Security Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1989

293 N.L.R.B. 593 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

COMMAND SECURITY CORP
In the matter of Command Security Corporation
Case AO-266
March 31, 1989
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT, HIGGINS, AND DEVANEY
Pursuant to Sections 102 98(a) and 102 99 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, on February 13, 1989, Command Security
Corporation (the Petitioner) filed a petition for an
advisory opinion as to whether the Board would
assert jurisdiction over its operations
In pertinent part the petition alleges as follows
1 A representation petition, Docket No SE-
56883, is currently pending before the New York
State Labor Relations Board (the SLRB) in which
Local 803, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
(the Union) is seeking to represent certain security
guards employed by the Petitioner at the City Uni-
versity of New York, New York City Technology
College, 300 Jay Street, Brooklyn, New York (the
City University) Also pending before the SLRB is
a refusal-to-bargain charge, Case No SU-56978,
filed by the Union
2 The Petitioner is a New York corporation en-
gaged in the business of providing guard and secu-
rity services During calendar year 1988, the Peti-
tioner had gross revenues in excess of $1 million, of
which $250,000 were derived from contracts per
formed for businesses located outside the State of
New York and $500,000 were derived from serv-
ices provided directly to businesses that were
themselves engaged in commerce
3 The Petitioner is unaware whether the Union
admits or denies the aforesaid commerce allega-
tions
593
Although all parties were served with a copy of
the petition for advisory opinion, none filed a
formal response thereto
Having duly considered the matter,' we find
that, based on the allegations in the petition, the
Petitioner would clearly satisfy the Board's com-
merce standards 2 However, in addition to seeking
a determination on the commerce issue , the petition
also appears to seek a determination as to whether
there are any other grounds, such as the nature of
the Petitioner's relationship to the City University,
on which the Board would decline to assert juris
diction Such a determination would be inappropri-
ate in the context of this proceeding, the Board's
advisory opinion proceedings under Section
102 98(a) are designed primarily to determine
whether an employer's operations meet the Board's
commerce standards for asserting jurisdiction 3
Thus, while we are able to advise the Petitioner
that it satisfies the Board's monetary standards for
asserting jurisdiction, we are unable in this pro
ceeding to resolve the ultimate issue presented
Accordingly, it is ordered that, for the reasons
set forth above, the petition for advisory opinion is
dismissed
' At the time the Petitioner filed its petition for advisory opinion there
was then pending before the Board the Petitioners request for review of
the Acting Regional Directors dismissal on unit grounds of a representa
tion petition the Petitioner had previously filed with the Board s Regional
Office involving the same dispute (Case 2-RM- 1993) Ordinarily the
Board will not consider a petition for advisory opinion in such a circum
stance See International Bureau for Protection 236 NLRB 1356 (1978)
However on February 28 1989 shortly after the petition for advisory
opinion was filed the Board denied the Petitioners request for review
The representation proceeding is therefore no longer pending Accord
ingly as we are unaware of any other representation or unfair labor prac
tice proceeding involving the dispute pending before the Board we have
found it appropriate in this instance to consider the petition
2 See Globe Security Systems 137 NLRB 109 (1962) (applying $50 000
nonretail standard to employers providing guard and security services)
3 See St Paul Ramsey Medical Center 288 NLRB 913 (1988) and Nor
colic & Drug Research 288 NLRB 912 (1988) See also 1113 Holding Ltd
291 NLRB 938 fn 3 (1988)
293 NLRB No 64