Dilene Answering Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 669 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

DILENE ANSWERING SERVICE , INC. 669
Dilene Answering Service, Inc. and United Telephone
Answering & Communications Service Union,
Local 780, AFL-CIO. Case AO-163
February 21, 1975
ADVISORY OPINION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, KENNEDY,
AND PENELLO
This is a petition filed on December 23, 1974, by
Dilene Answering Service , Inc., herein called the
Employer, for an Advisory Opinion, in conformity
with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations , Series 8, as amended , seeking to
determine whether the Board would assert jurisdic-
tion over the Employer. Thereafter, on January 10,
1975, the Employer filed a supplementary petition,
with an attached brief . On February 3, 1975, United
Telephone Answering & Communications Service
Union, Local 780, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, filed a response to the petition.'
In pertinent part, the petition, the supplemental
petition and brief , and the Union's response allege:
(1) There is pending before the New York State
Labor Relations Board, herein called the State
Board, unfair labor practice charges filed by the
United Telephone Answering & Communications
Service Union, Local 780, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union, docket numbers SU-48132, 48133, 48135,
48136, and 48142 involving the Employer's operation
located in Spring Valley, New York. No complaint
has issued.
(2) The Employer owns and operates telephone
answering services in Spring Valley, Yonkers, Mid-
dletown, and New Rochelle, New York, and, except
for the latter city, also owns and operates radio
paging and beeper services from the same offices.
The Yonkers and New Rochelle offices are both
located in Westchester County, which is contiguous
to Rockland County where the Spring Valley office is
located, and both offices are well within 25 miles of
the Spring Valley office. The Middletown office is in
Orange County, which is contiguous to Rockland
County and is approximately 30 to 35 miles from the
Spring Valley office. Although organized as separate
corporate entities , the Employer has common offi-
cers, stockholders, and directors; has a common
bookkeeping staff ; and there is common control and
supervision over labor relation policies administered
by Kenneth H. Iscol, the Employer's president who,
as the sole operating owner, during the course of an
average week, spends 1 full day at each location and,
in addition thereto, keeps in constant telephonic
communication with each location.
(3) During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, the
Employer grossed in excess of $100,000 at its Spring
Valley operation and its operations in Yonkers and
New Rochelle grossed approximately $500,000.
There is no commerce data supplied with respect to
the Employer's Middletown operation, since this
office was acquired on or about December 4, 1974;
however, the Employer asserts that if the Middle-
town office is included its gross sales of its combined
locations would be significantly higher than
$600,000. During the past calendar year, more than
$50,000 in purchases were made of pocket paging
receivers used for the radio paging and beeper
systems in the various offices, which were manufac-
tured by a company located outside the State of New
York. A large percentage of radio signals are
transmitted outside the State of New York, in view of
the fact that the Employer's offices are in proximity
to the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and its
telephone answering services are used to receive calls
from people in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
Connecticut. The telephone switchboards used by
the Employer are leased from the New York
Telephone Company and, upon information and
belief, these switchboard systems were manufactured
outside the State of New York.
(4) Unfair labor practice proceedings involving this
labor dispute are pending before this Board.
(5) Although served with a copy of the petition for
Advisory Opinion, no response, as provided by the
Board's Rules and Regulations, has been filed by the
state board.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the
opinion that:
The Employer owns and operates telephone an-
swering services and radio paging and beeper
services located in Yonkers, New Rochelle, Spring
Valley, and Middletown, New York, which, for
purposes of this Advisory Opinion, it is reasonable to
assume , constitutes a single-integrated enterprise.2
The Employer asserts that it is Board policy to
consider the combined total commerce data of the
Employer's operations in determining the jurisdic-
tional issue . Moreover, the Employer submits that
under any applicable standard, retail or nonretail,
jurisdiction would be appropriate. We agree. It is
customary to consider for jurisdictional purposes the
i In its response the Union contends that it has filed unfair labor practice there are charges pending, nor does the determination made herein preclude
charges with this Board and that the most appropriate forum for the Board 's the processing of the charges filed.
determination of jurisdiction rests in the Board 's Regional Office . There is 2 Front Porch Holding Corp., and Front Porch 82, Inc., 214 NLRB No. 117
nothing to preclude this Board from issuing an Advisory Opinion when (1974).
216 NLRB No. 108
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
total combined commerce data of all of an employ-
er's operations .3 Accordingly, we shall consider the
combined annual gross volume of business of the
Employer's four operations for jurisdictional purpos-
es.
The current standard for the Board's assertion of
jurisdiction over a retail enterprise which falls within
its statutory jurisdiction is that such an enterprise
must do a gross volume of business totaling at least
$500,000 annually.' The current standard for the
assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises is
3 Ibid.
Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88 (1958).
s Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 , 85 (1958). See also Answering,
Inc., 215 NLRB No. 118 (1974), in which the Board asserted jurisdiction
an annual inflow or outflow, direct or indirect, across
state lines, of $50,000.5
From the foregoing, it is apparent that the
Employer's operations would meet either the retail or
nonretail standard to bring the Employer's total
operations within the Board's statutory jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section
102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, that, on the allegations herein made,
the Board would assert jurisdiction over the opera-
tions of the Employer with respect to labor disputes
cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.
over an employer engaged in telephone answering services which were
performed in excess of $50,000 for customers located out of State, and
where the Employer purchased and received from out of State materials
valued in excess of $50,000.