Mandel Management Corp.

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termination of an employee The Petitioner has requested the State Board to stay the instant proceed- ings and has withdrawn its consent to an election because of the pending unfair labor practice charges. 2 The Petitioner contends that the Board asserted jurisdiction over its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.