Swift Cleaners, Inc.

752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Swift Cleaners, Inc., B. Gross, and B. Gross Men's Wear, Inc. and Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers International Union, Local 10. Case AO- 128 February 26, 1971 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed on January 18, 1971, by Swift Cleaners, Inc., B. Gross, and B. Gross Men's Wear, Inc., herein referred to individually by their respective names and collectively referred to as the Employer, for an Advisory Opinion in confirmity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, to determine whether the Board would assert jurisdic- tion over the Employer. On January 27, 1971, Laun- dry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers International Union, Local 10, herein called the Un- ion, filed its Response to the Petition for Advisory Opinion. In pertinent part, the petition alleges as follows: 1. There is presently pending before the Pennsylva- nia Labor Relations Board a petition for investigation and certification of representatives, Case R-34654-E, filed by the Union, and seeking an election among employees employed by Swift Cleaners, Inc., at its laundry and dry cleaning establishments located at Village Green, Crum Lynne, and Chester, Pennsylva- nia. 2. By its petition, the Employer asserts that Swift Cleaners, Inc., B. Gross, and B. Gross Men's Wear, Inc., are retail enterprises engaging in the operation of laundry and dry cleaning establishments and the op- eration of a men's wear and clothing store. The Em- ployer alleges that the three concerns are commonly owned, operated, and controlled by the immediate members of the Gross family and, accordingly, consti- tute a single-integrated enterprise for the purpose of the Board's exercise of jurisdiction. Further, the Em- ployer asserts that the combined annual gross volume of business of Swift Cleaners, Inc., B. Gross, and B. Gross Men's Wear, Inc., exceeds the Board's current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over retail enterprises. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opin- ion that: 1. The Employer consists of three separate business ventures which are retail enterprises. 2. The Board's current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over retail concerns which fall within its statutory jurisdiction is a minimum gross annual vol- ume of business of $500,000. Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88, 89. However, it is not enough to show, as the Employer does here, that it is engaged in the retail industry and has a gross annual volume of business sufficient to satisfy the Board's standard. Some proof must be made of legal or stat- utory jurisdiction, that is, that the Employer involved is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.' 3. No evidence has been received that the Employer's business operations are subject to the Board's legal or statutory jurisdiction. The allegations of the petition are limited to the nature of the Employer's business ventures and the extent of its gross annual volume of business, and they fail to show the extent, if any, of direct or indirect inflow or out- flow of goods or services. Accordingly, the parties are advised that, pursuant to Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended: 1. The Board would not assert jurisdiction over the Employer on the facts alleged in the petition because they fail to show the extent of direct or indirect inflow or outflow of goods or services, and, accordingly, there is no basis upon which to establish the Board's legal or statutory jurisdiction. 2. This opinion is limited to the facts presented to the Baord, and in view of our disposition herein, we do not reach the Employer's contentions relating to the alleged integrated nature of its operations, or the contentions advanced by the Union in its Response to Petition for Advisory Opinion. 1 James D Jackson d/b/a Jackson's Party Service, 126 NLRB 875.