Riv Realty

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 118 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter of Uzi Einey, d/b/a Riv Realty. Case
AO-247
8 March 1984
ORDER GRANTING MOTION AND
ADVISORY OPINION
CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 24 August 1983 the Board dismissed' the
Employer's petition for an advisory opinion be-
cause there was an unfair labor practice proceed-
ing, Case 2-CB-9893, pending before the Board
which would resolve the jurisdictional issue.
On 14 September 1983 the Employer filed a
motion for reconsideration, with attachments, argu-
ing that the unfair labor practice charge had been
dismissed,2 and the Board, therefore, should now
determine whether it would assert jurisdiction over
the Employer.
As reflected in the Board's 24 August Advisory
Opinion, the State Board certified that the Union
involved as the exclusive representative of "the
[sole] employee" of the Employer at 839 West End
Avenue, New York City. As the unfair labor prac-
tice proceeding has been dismissed, it is now ap-
propriate to rule on the jurisdictional issue.
The Employer's petition for an advisory opinion
filed on 4 May 1983 reflects that the Employer
owns, operates, manages, and controls an apart-
ment building located at 675 West End Avenue,
' 267 NLRB 325.
a On 11 May 1983 the Employer filed with the Board a copy of an
unfair labor practice charge, Case 2-CB-9893, that it had filed against the
Union on 9 May 1983. Thereafter, on 27 June 1983, the Board's Regional
Director dismissed Case 2-CB-9893 on the ground that no further pro-
ceedings on the charge were warranted. At the time the Board issued its
Advisory Opinion it was not apprised that the charge had been dismissed.
New York City, which generates in excess of
$500,000 per year in rental income. The Employer
further alleges that the business venture involved in
the instant proceeding grosses in excess of $200,000
per year, and that it has partnership interests in
other buildings in the New York City area, which
the combined income exceeds $2,500,000 per year.
Upon information and belief, the Employer's com-
merce data is denied by the Union, and the State
Board has made no findings with respect thereto.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board having considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED that the Employer's motion for
reconsideration be granted. It is the Board's adviso-
ry opinion that, as it appears the gross rental reve-
nues derived from the two apartment buildings in-
volved exceed the $500,000 standard established by
the Board for residential apartments, assuming the
Petitioner is, with respect to these two buildings, a
single employer, and assuming further that the Em-
ployer's out-of-state purchases are more than de
minimis, satisfying the Board's statutory jurisdic-
tion, it would effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction. 3
Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Sec-
tion 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
that, based on the allegations and assumptions
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.4
s Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967).
The Board's advisory opinion proceedings "are designed primarily to
determine questions of jurisdiction by application of the Board's discre-
tionary standards to the 'commerce' operations of an employer." Walker
Butler, P.J., Superior Court, Cook County, 138 NLRB 221 (1962).
269 NLRB No. 19
118