Gabo's Cleaners

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1995

316 N.L.R.B. 1247 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

1247
316 NLRB No. 195
GABO’S CLEANERS
1 The Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 See Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958).
3 We assume in this regard that the local suppliers from which the
Employer purchased its goods, supplies, equipment, and services had
received such goods, supplies, equipment, and services directly from
outside the State of New York. See 373-381 South Broadway Asso-
ciates, 303 NLRB 973 fn. 6 (1991).
4 The Board’s advisory opinion proceedings under Sec. 102.98(a)
are designed primarily to determine whether an employer’s oper-
ations meet the Board’s ‘‘commerce’’ standards for asserting juris-
diction. Accordingly, the instant Advisory Opinion is not intended
to express any view whether the Board would certify the Union as
representative of the petitioned-for unit under Sec. 9(c) of the Act.
See generally Sec. 101.40 of the Board’s Rules.
Gabo’s Cleaners, Inc., Petitioner and Window
Cleaner’s Union, Local No. 2, Service Employ-
ees International Union. Case AO–322
April 18, 1995
ADVISORY OPINION
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, BROWNING, AND COHEN
Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, on March 22, 1995, Gabo’s Cleaners, Inc. (the
Employer) filed a Petition for Advisory Opinion as to
whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over its
operations. In pertinent part, the petition alleges as fol-
lows:
1. A proceeding, Case SE-58875, is currently pend-
ing before the New York State Employment Relations
Board (NYSERB) in which the Union is seeking to be
certified as the representative for the window cleaners
employed by the Employer, excluding all other em-
ployees, supervisors, and office employees.
2. The Employer is a cleaning contractor engaged in
the business of providing cleaning and maintenance
services to office buildings, governmental agency fa-
cilities, and other edifices. It is located at 383 Oakley
Avenue, Elmont, New York.
3. During the 12-month period preceding the filing
of the instant petition, the Employer had gross reve-
nues in excess of $900,000 and purchased goods, sup-
plies, equipment, and services, valued in excess of
$50,000, which originated outside the State of New
York from the following companies: Burke Supplies,
Brooklyn, New York ($40,000); Uneeda Chemicals,
Elmont, New York ($6000); Lednak Industries, New
Hyde Park, New York ($10,000); Mobil Oil Company
($10,000); NYNEX ($8000); and Cellularone
($10,000).
4. The Union neither admits nor denies the aforesaid
commerce data, and the NYSERB has not made any
findings with respect thereto.
5. There are no representation or unfair labor prac-
tice proceedings involving the same labor dispute
pending before the Board.
Although all parties were served with a copy of the
Petition for Advisory Opinion, no response was filed.
Having duly considered the matter,1 the Board is of
the opinion that it would assert jurisdiction over the
Employer. The Board has established a standard of
$50,000, direct or indirect inflow or outflow, for as-
serting jurisdiction over nonretail entities.2 The Em-
ployer has alleged and the Union has not disputed facts
which satisfy the Board’s discretionary and statutory
standards for asserting jurisdiction.3
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based on
the foregoing allegations and assumptions, the Board
would assert jurisdiction over the Employer.4