Hotel, & Restaurant Employees, Local 49

HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 49 Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 49, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bar- tenders International, AFL-CIO and Diamond Springs Hotel Corporation. Case AO-208 June 5, 1978 ADVISORY OPINION A petition was filed on March 30, 1978, by Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 49, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders In- ternational, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, for an advisory opinion in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, seeking to determine whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over Di- amond Springs Hotel Corporation, herein called the Employer. In pertinent part the petition alleges as follows: I. There is pending before the Superior Court of California, county of El Dorado, herein called the State Court, a motion for temporary restraining or- der and injunction, Docket No. 30935, filed by the Employer against the Union. In its petition for advi- sory opinion, the Union alleges that it will argue against the Employer's court motion on the ground that the Employer's unfair practices are preempted by the National Labor Relations Board. 2. The petition alleges that the Employer's name is Diamond Springs Hotel Corporation: that it is doing business in Diamond Springs, California; and that the Union believes that the aggregated volume of business of the Employer's retail establishments bring the Employer within the Board's discretionary jurisdictional standards. 3. The above-described commerce data is appar- ently denied by the Employer. 4. There is an unfair labor practice proceeding filed by the Union against the Employer, Case 32- CA-816, pending before this Board. Although served with a copy of the petition for advisory opinion, no response, as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations, has been filed by an! party. On the basis of the foregoing, the Board Is of the opinion that: The Board's advisory opinion proceedings are de- signed primarily to determine questions of jurisdic- tion by application of the Board's discretionary stan- dards to the "commerce" operations of an employer.' As noted above, as to the Employer's operations, the Union's petition only recites the Employer's business name, where it is doing business, the Union's belief that the aggregated volume of business of the Em- ployer's retail establishments bring the Employer within the Board's discretionary jurisdictional stan- dards, and that the Employer apparently denies the latter assertion. The petition further recites that there is an unfair labor practice proceeding, involving the parties herein, pending before this Board. Because of the inadequacy of the record, we are unable to make a determination as to whether the Employer meets our jurisdictional standards. We would not, in any event, make such a determination in an advisory opinion, inasmuch as there is pending before the Board a statutory unfair labor practice proceeding which has advanced to a formal stage where a binding adjudication of the jurisdictional is- sue can be obtained from the Board within the framework of that proceeding. As no other consider- ations suggesting an urgent need for earlier Board determination of the jurisdictional question alone have been brought to the Board's attention, the un- derlying purpose of the advisory opinion procedures is better served, and without unnecessary duplication and possible confusion, if the Board follows the prac- tice of confining itself solely to the disposition of the statutory proceeding pending before it.2 Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the petition for advisory opinion be, and it hereby is, dismissed. I Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board `George Junior Republic). 215 NLRB 323 (1974); Globe Securir Systems, Inc.. 209 NLRB 35 (1974); Robert C Coleman, et al. 180 NLRB 529 (1969): Iniernational Air Service, Inm ofSan Juan, Puerto Rico. 165 NLRB 584 (1967) See. for example, Maitre'D Restaurani. 145 NLRB 1161 (1964). 236 NLRB No. 76 711