Rent Stabilization Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 1, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 256 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rent Stabilization Association of NYC, Inc. and
Office & Professional Employees International
Union, Local 153, AFL-CIO and New York
State Labor Relations Board. Case AO-232
June 1, 1981
ADVISORY OPINION
A petition and memorandum in support thereof
were filed on March 19 and April 6, 1981, respec-
tively, by Rent Stabilization Association of NYC,
Inc., herein called the Employer, for an advisory
opinion in conformity with Sections 102.98 and
102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, seek-
ing to determine whether the Board would assert
jurisdiction over the Employer's operations on the
basis of its current jurisdictional standards. On
April 6, 1981, the New York State Labor Relations
Board, herein called the State Board, filed an oppo-
sition urging the Board to decline jurisdiction
herein. Thereafter, on April 27, 1981, the Employ-
er filed a response to the State Board's letter
urging that the Board reject the letter as untimely
because of late service on the Employer and alter-
natively submitting an additional response to the
State Board's substantive arguments. The Employ-
er's motion to reject the State Board's letter as un-
timely is denied.
In pertinent part, the petition, memorandum, and
opposition allege as follows:
1. There is pending before the State Board a rep-
resentation petition, Case SE-53592, filed by Office
& Professional Employees International Union,
Local 153, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union,
seeking to be certified as the collective-bargaining
representative of the Employer's secretaries, book-
keepers, and computer section employees.'
2. The Employer, a private, not-for-profit mem-
bership corporation, is a real estate industry associ-
ation consisting of dues-paying members who own
rent-stabilized apartment buildings in New York
City.2 It provides various services to its members
and the public. Informational and counseling serv-
ices are provided to tenants who have questions or
problems, seminars are given to owners of rent-sta-
bilized buildings, and bulletins and publications are
distributed to the public and its members. During
1980, a representative year, the Employer's gross
revenues which are derived entirely from member-
ship dues were in excess of $4 million, while the
value of goods and services furnished directly to it
i On February 9, 1981, the State Board certified the Union as the rep-
resentative of the Employer's receptionists, mailroom employees,
intervenors/interviewers, and membership counselors in Case SE-53043
2 The Employer has 20,000 members who own 900,000 apartments in
43,000 buildings.
256 NLRB No. 38
from outside the State of New York exceeded
$200,000.
3. The thrust of the State Board's opposition to
the Board's assumption of jurisdiction herein is that
the Employer is not engaged in commercial activi-
ty within the meaning of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act. It points out that the Employer neither
operates nor manages real estate and that it was or-
ganized pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law to
provide rent regulation within the city of New
York. The statute enables all interested landlords to
provide voluntary self-regulation, by the promulga-
tion of city-approved rules and regulations, guard-
ing against excessive rent increases. The Employer
also funds a conciliation and appeals board, a sepa-
rate and distinct quasi-judicial agency whose mem-
bers are appointed by the mayor of the city of
New York and which resolves disputes over claims
of hardship in rent increases. 3
4. The Union neither admits nor denies the afore-
said commerce data and the State Board has not
made any findings with respect thereto. The State
Board has advised that it has not agreed to hold its
proceedings in abeyance pending a Board decision
on the jurisdictional issue herein.
5. There is no representation or unfair labor
practice proceeding involving the same labor dis-
pute pending before this Board.
6. Although served with a copy of the petition
herein, the Union has not filed a response as per-
mitted by the Board's Rules and Regulations.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Board con-
cludes that:
1. The Employer is a not-for-profit real estate in-
dustry association which does not operate or
manage real estate, but does supply various serv-
ices to the public and to its thousands of members
who own rent stabilized apartment buildings in the
city of New York. Its annual gross revenue of
more than $4 million not only meets the Board's
$500,000 discretionary standard for assertion of ju-
risdiction over residential real estate,4 but also ex-
ceeds the Board's maximum monetary standard of
$1 million for assertion of jurisdiction. 5 In addition,
the more than $200,000 annual interstate inflow of
goods and services furnished the Employer directly
from outside the State of New York establishes the
Board's legal jurisdiction. Thus, the Employer's op-
erations are sufficient to meet any of the Board's
3 The State Board asserts that this quasi-judicial board was found to be
a political subdivision within the meaning of Sec. 2(2) of the Act and
exempt from Board jurisdiction. (New York City Conciliation and Appeals
Board and Local 8 of B. , Case 2 RC-18368 )
4Karl Gerber. Max l7etle, Nathan Metz & Estate of Bernard Katz. Co-
Partners d/b/a Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967), and James John-
ston Property Management, 221 NLRB 301 (1975).
5 See, e.g., Board Rules and Regulations. Sees. 103 1 and 103.2.
RENT STABILIZATION ASSOCIATION 257
self-imposed jurisdictional standards. However, the
State Board argues that the Employer is not en-
gaged in commercial activity. We do not agree. To
the extent that the Employer is rendering services
to its member-owners of rent-stabilized apartment
buildings, it is an adjunct to, and a part of, the real
estate industry whose operations were found, in
Parkview, supra, to have a substantial impact on
commerce. As such, its services must be considered
as principally promoting and advancing commer-
cial activities in the real estate industry of New
York City, thereby warranting the assertion of ju-
risdiction over the Employer.6
Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Sec-
tion 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
6 See Middle Department Association of Fire Underwriters 122 NLRB
1155 (1959); The New York Board of Fire Underwriters, 193 NLRB 551
(1971); Legal Services for Northwestern Pennsylvania, 230 NLRB 688
(1977); American Arbitration Association Inc.. 225 NLRB 291 (1976); and
Wurster Bernardi d Emmons, Inc., 192 NLRB 1049 (1971). See also
Montgomery County Opportunity Board, Inc., 249 NLRB 880 (1980); and
Mexican American Unity Council, Inc., 207 NLRB 800 (1973).
Series 8, as amended, that, based on the allegations
made herein, the Board would assert jurisdiction
over the operations of the Employer with respect
to labor disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9,
and 10 of the Act.
CHAIRMAN FANNING, dissenting:
I would dismiss the petition for advisory opinion
herein as I believe it goes beyond the intendment
of that procedure. The basic purpose of advisory
opinions is to advise parties officially whether or
not an employer comes within our discretionary ju-
risdictional standards. Pennsylvania Labor Relations
Board (George Junior Republic), 215 NLRB 323
(1974). The issue here is whether or not the em-
ployer is engaged in commercial activities, a con-
siderably broader question, and one I am not in-
clined to answer in its present posture. See, e.g.,
Leisure Village Association, Inc., 236 NLRB 102
(1978).