G. R. Coach And Chieppo Bus Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 582 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chieppo Bus Company and its alter egos, Comfort
Coach and Nicholas Chieppo d/b/a G. R. Coach
and Chieppo Bus Company and Amalgamated
Transit Union, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case AO-252
18 February 1986
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS, JOHANSEN, AND BABSON
A petition was filed on 17 September 1985 by
Chieppo Bus Company, Comfort Coach, Nicholas
Chieppo d/b/a G. R. Coach, Lucky, Inc., Chieppo
Coaches, and Chieppo Transportation, the Petition-
ers, for an advisory opinion seeking to determine
whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over
the Petitioners. On 24 September 1985, the Peti-
tioners filed an amendment to the petition; on 4
October 1985, the General Counsel filed a brief in
opposition to the petition and a motion to dismiss
the petition.
In pertinent parts, the submissions allege as fol-
lows:
The Petitioners are engaged in the transportation
business. On 30 November 1983 the National Labor
Relations Board, Subregion 39, issued an order
consolidating cases, consolidated complaint, and
notice of hearing in Cases 39-CA-1699 and 39-
CA-1798, alleging that Chieppo Bus Company and
its alter egos, Comfort Coach and Nicholas
Chieppo d/b/a G. R. Coach, violated Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act.' In its answer to the
1 On 16 April 1985 a third amended charge was filed in Case 39-CA-
1798, alleging Lucky, Inc., Chieppo Coaches, and Chieppo Transporta-
consolidated complaint, as well as in its petition for
advisory opinion, the Petitioners admit that during
the 12-month period prior to the issuance of the
consolidated complaint, it purchased and received
at its Connecticut facilities goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of Connecticut and that it derived
gross revenues in excess of $250,000.
In its amendment to the petition for Advisory
Opinion, the Petitioners allege that there is current-
ly a proceeding before the New Haven Probate
Court in which Board jurisdiction is an issue.
- On the basis of the above, the Board is of the
opinion that:
Because there is an outstanding statutory unfair
labor practice proceeding in which a binding adju-
dication of the jurisdictional issue can be obtained
and no other considerations suggesting an urgent
need for earlier Board _ determination of the juris-
dictional question alone have been brought to the
Board's attention, the underlying, purpose of the
advisory opinion procedures will be better served,
and unnecessary duplication and possible confusion
will be avoided, if the Board follows the practice
of confining itself -solely to the resolution of the
statutory proceeding before it.2
Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for
Advisory Opinion be dismissed.3
tion as additional alter egos of Clueppo Bus Company . That charge is
presently pending in the Subregional Office.
2 Standby One Associates, 270 NLRB 444 (1984); Hotel & Restaurant
Employees Local 49 (Diamond Springs Hotel), 236 NLRB 711 (1978).
a In view of our determination herem, we find it unnecessary to decide
the issue raised by the General Counsel-whether the petition fails to sat-
isfy the requirements of Secs . 102.98 and 102 .99 of the Board 's Rules and
Regulations.
278 NLRB No. 71