Marlake Associates

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 12, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 335 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

MARLAKE ASSOCIATES
Marlake Associates and Marlake Islip Company and
Local 307, Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO. Case AO-194
August 12, 1977
ADVISORY OPINION
A petition with exhibits attached was filed on
February 28, 1977, by Marlake Associates and
Marlake Islip Company, herein also referred to as the
Petitioners, for an Advisory Opinion, in conformity
with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National
Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, seeking to determine whether
the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petition-
ers.
In pertinent part, the petition and exhibits allege as
follows:
I. There are pending before the New York State
Labor Relations Board, herein called the State
Board, three alleged unfair labor practice proceed-
ings involving the Petitioners, filed by Local 307,
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union. The Union has also filed
unfair labor practice charges against Marlake Islip
Company with the National Labor Relations Board.
2. In the petition, the Petitioners assert that
Marlake Associates is a partnership which owns and
operates an apartment complex on Long Island, New
York, and that Marlake Islip Company is a partner-
ship which owns and operates an apartment complex
on Long Island and in Connecticut.' For the
calendar year 1975, Marlake Islip Company's two
locations received gross annual income in the
amount of $828,373,2 and Marlake Associates re-
ceived $216,249 from its Long Island location.3 The
Petitioners allege that the 1976 figures will at least
equal, if not exceed, the 1975 figures.
I It is alleged that there is only the difference of one partner between the
two partnerships, which constitute a common or joint owner, and that the
three apartment complexes are commonly owned and controlled by the
partnerships, which also have common control of labor relations.
2 The sum of $391,604 for the Long Island location and $436.769 for the
Connecticut location.
:1 The Petitioners assert that both companies and all locations must be
considered together for the purpose of junsdiction.
4 Dilene Answering Service, Inc., 216 NLRB 669 (1975); Front Porch
Holding Corp., and Front Porch 82, Inc., 214 NLRB 788 (1974).
3. The Union neither admits nor denies the
aforesaid commerce data and the State Board has
made no findings with respect thereto.
4. There are unfair labor practice proceedings
involving the same labor dispute pending before this
Board.
5. Although the parties have been served with a
copy of this petition, no response, as provided by the
Board's Rules and Regulations, has been filed by any
of them.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Board is of the
opinion that:
1. Petitioners, Marlake Associates and Marlake
Islip Company, own and operate apartment com-
plexes located on Long Island, New York, and in the
State of Connecticut and, for the purposes of this
Advisory Opinion, it is reasonable to assume,
constitute a single integrated enterprise.4
2. The thrust of the Petitioners' petition is that the
totality of its operations must be considered in
determining whether Petitioners' operations meet the
Board's jurisdictional standards.
The Board has a longstanding practice of aggregat-
ing gross revenues derived from all the buildings
operated by an employer of this type.5 As noted
above, the gross annual income derived from the
apartment complexes operated by the Petitioners, as
a single enterprise, is in excess of $500,000. As the
total annual gross dollar volume of business of all the
apartment buildings operated by the Petitioners
exceeds the $500,000 standard established by the
Board for residental apartments, 6 we would assert
jurisdiction over the Petitioners' operations.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section
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 Petitioners with respect to labor
disputes cognizable under Section 8, 9, and 10 of the
Act.
s See Adelsberg & Co., 225 NLRB 952 (1976); James Johnston Property
Management, 221 NLRB 301 (1975). and cases cited therein. Member
Penello, who dissented in the James Johnston case, distinguishes the instant
case on the ground that, unlike James Johnston, there is a showing herein
that the owners and operators of the complexes are an integrated enterprise
and, therefore, would aggregate the gross revenues.
6 See Karl Gerber, Max Taetle, Nathan Metz d Estate of Bernard Karz,
Co-Partners d/b a Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967).
231 NLRB No. 55
335