Mandel Management Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 186 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mandel Management Corporation and Local 32B-
Local 32J, Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO. Case AO-219
March 6, 1980
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND TRUESDALE
A petition and a letter were filed on February 15
and 22, 1980, respectively, by Mandel Management
Corporation, herein called the Petitioner, for an ad-
visory 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 jurisdiction over the Peti-
tioner's operations. Subsequently, the New York
State Labor Relations Board, herein called the
State Board, filed a statement in opposition thereto.
In pertinent part, the petition and letter and the
State Board's opposition allege as follows:
1. There are pending before the New York State
Labor Relations Board, a representation proceed-
ing, SE-52580, and unfair labor practice proceed-
ings, SU-52614 and SU-52615, filed by Local 32B-
Local 32J, Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union. '
2. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of
managing residential and commercial properties in
the City of New York. The properties' gross ren-
troll is in excess of $1 million.2
3. The Union neither admits nor denies the afore-
said commerce data and the State Board has made
no findings with respect thereto.
I Case SE-52580 resulted ill an agreement for consent election. Subse-
quent to the agreement, the Union filed unfair labor practice charges al-
leging a refusal to bargain and the illegal termination of an employee
The Petitioner has requested the State Board to stay the instant proceed-
ings and has withdrawn its consent to an election because of the pending
unfair labor practice charges.
2 The Petitioner contends that the Board asserted jurisdiction over its
operations in a prior Board proceeding, Herbert Mandel and Henry
Mandel d/b/a Mandel Management Co., 245 NLRB No. 55 (1979), which
involved an unfair labor practice charge filed by the Union. The Petition-
er asserts that the partnership in that case was the direct predecessor to
the corporation herein; that all of the partners of the former partnership
are now shareholders of the corporation; and that the corporation is in-
volved in precisely the same business as the predecessor partnership
248 NLRB No. 66
4. There is no representation or unfair labor
practice proceeding involving the same labor dis-
pute pending before this Board.
5. The Petitioner has requested the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to
stay the election scheduled by the State Board.
Mandel Management Corp., et al. v. New York State
Labor Relations Board, et al., 80 Civ. 1012 (1980).
Subsequently, the court required the State Board to
impound the ballots cast in the election for a
period of 2 weeks to permit the Board to determine
whether to assert jurisdiction. In addition, the State
Board advised the court that it would not process
the unfair labor practice charges involving the par-
ties until there is a determination of this Board's ju-
risdiction.
6. As noted above, the State Board has submitted
a statement in opposition to the petition for an ad-
visory opinion.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
(1) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of
managing residential and commercial properties in
the city of New York.
(2) The Petitioner contends, inter alia, that the
Board should assert jurisdiction over its operations,
relying on the facts that the Petitioner and the
Union have been subject to this Board's jurisdic-
tion, and that all partners of the former partnership
are now shareholders of the present corporation
and said corporation is involved in precisely the
same business as the predecessor partnership.
As noted above, the annual gross rental revenues
derived from the management of residential and
commercial properties are in excess of $1 million,
and assuming that the Petitioner's out-of-state pur-
chases are more than de minimis, satisfying the
Board's statutory jurisdiction, it would effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Sec-
tion 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, that, based on the allegations
herein made, the Board would assert jurisdiction
over the operations of the Petitioner with respect
to labor disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9,
and 10 of the Act.