Dist. 65 Wholesale, Retail, Office & Processing Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 791 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

DIST. 65, WHOLESALE, RETAIL, OFFICE & PROCESSING UNION 791
District 65, Wholesale , Retail , Office & Processing
Union and New York State Labor Relations Board
and New York University and Office and Profes-
sional Employees International Union, Local 153,
AFL-CIO. Case AO-124
November 24, 1970
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
This is a petition filed on September 24, 1970, by
District 65, Wholesale, Retail, Office & Processing
Union, herein called the Petitioner, for an Advisory
Opinion in conformity with Subpart H of the
National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, requesting that the Board
advise the New York State Labor Relations Board,
herein called the State Board, that it is not precluded,
as a matter of comity or Federal preemption, from
processing to final conclusion the representation
proceeding (Docket Case No. SEE-44004) instituted
before it by New York University, herein called the
Employer.
On September 29, the Petitioner filed motion for
preference requesting that the petition herein be
accorded preferential treatment in its disposition. On
October 6, the Employer telegraphed the Board
urging, inter alia, expeditious disposition of the
petition. Thereafter, on October 9, 1970, Local 153,
Office and Professional Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 153, filed a
reply to the petition. By letter dated October 14,
received October 19, 1970, the Petitioner filed a
rebuttal to Local 153's reply in order to correct certain
alleged inaccuracies. Although served with a copy of
the instant petition, no response as provided by the
Board's Rules and Regulations has been filed by the
State Board.
The Board has duly considered the allegations of
the petition, motion, telegram, reply, and rebuttal.
The Board's Advisory Opinion proceedings "are
designed primarily to determine questions of jurisdic-
tion by application of the Board's discretionary
standards to the `commerce' operations of an
employer." t The basic issue presented herein is
whether the Board should advise that the State Board
is not precluded, as a matter of comity or Federal
preemption, from processing to a final conclusion the
representation proceeding instituted before it at a
time when the State Board had jurisdiction over the
Employer. As this issue does not fall within the
intendment of the Board's Advisory Opinion rules, an
Advisory Opinion is not an appropriate vehicle for
rendering advice on such issue. We shall dismiss the
petition herein.2
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that, for the
reasons set forth above, the petition for an Advisory
Opinion herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
I International Air Service, Inc. of San Juan, Puerto Rico, 165 NLRB 584,
and cases cited therein.
2 See ibid.
186 NLRB No. 135