Kim Gorze

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 446 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kim Gorze and Paul A. Laurence Company and Build-
ing Construction Laborers Local No. 1097. Case
AO-213
May 23, 1979
ADVISORY OPINION
On February 27, 1979, Kim Gorze, herein called
the Petitioner, filed a petition pursuant to Section
102.98 and Section 102.99 of the National Labor Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, for an Advisory Opinion whether the
Board would assert jurisdiction over the dispute be-
tween the Petitioner and Paul A. Laurence Company,
herein called the Employer, and Building Construc-
tion Laborers Local No. 1097, herein called the
Union.
In pertinent part, the petition alleges as follows:
I. There is pending in the District Court, Ninth
Judicial District, State of Minnesota, herein called the
State Court, a proceeding with docket number 12,637
filed by the Petitioner seeking to recover damages (I)
against the Employer for refusing to rehire the Peti-
tioner in accord with an express verbal agreement to
do so and in violation of the collective-bargaining
agreement between the Employer and the Union and
(2) against the Union for breaching its duty of fair
representation and for refusing to enforce the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement. In this proceeding, the
Employer and the Union have asserted, by way of
defense, that jurisdiction over this matter is in the
Board and not in the state court.
2. The Employer is a general contractor engaged
in construction in Minneapolis and in International
Falls, Minnesota. Commerce data relating to the Em-
ployer's business operations has not been furnished
because the Petitioner does not have sufficient infor-
mation thereof.
3. The Petitioner alleges that he does not know
whether the Employer's commerce data affecting the
Board's jurisdictional standards are admitted or de-
nied by the Employer and the Union, and that no
findings have been made by an agency or court with
respect to such data. However, he believes that such
data invoking the Board's jurisdictional standards are
admitted because both the Employer and the Union
have asserted, in the state court proceeding, that the
Board, and not the state court, has jurisdiction.
4. There is no representation or unfair labor prac-
tice proceeding involving this matter pending before
the Board.
5. Although served with a copy of the petition for
Advisory Opinion, none of the parties have filed a
response thereto as provided by the Board's Rules
and Regulations.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opin-
ion that:
1. The Employer, a general contractor, is a nonre-
tail enterprise engaged in construction in Minneapolis
and International Falls, Minnesota.
2. The Board's current standard for the assertion
of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises is an inflow
or outflow, direct or indirect, across state lines of at
least $50,000.' Because of the inadequacy of the rec-
ords herein due to the absence of any commerce data
relating to the Employer's business operations, we are
unable to make a meaningful determination as to
whether statutory or legal jurisdiction exists over the
Employer's operations2 or whether, assuming, argu-
endo, that statutory or legal jurisdiction does exist, the
Employer's operations meet the dollar-volume test of
the Board's nonretail standard.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section
102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, that,
upon the allegations submitted herein, the Board is
unable to conclude whether or not it would assert
jurisdiction over the operations of the Employer
herein.
t Siemons Mailing Service. 122 NLRB 81, 85 (1958).
2 Broome- Tioga Chapter of the New York Stare Association for Retarded
Children, Inc., 229 NLRB 459 (19771.
242 NLRB No. 57
446