Walters Ambulance Service, Inc.

422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Walters Ambulance Service, Inc. and Association of United Ambulance Personnel. Case AO-155 July 11, 1974 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed on May 25, 1974, by Walters Ambulance Service, Inc., herein called the Employer, for an Advisory Opinion, in conformity 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 June 11, 1974, the Em- ployer filed a brief in support of its petition. In pertinent part, the petition and brief allege as follows: 1. There is pending before the New York State La- bor Relations Board, herein called the State Board, a proceeding with docket numbers, Cases WE-1783, WU-1793, and WU-1794, involving the Employer and the Association of United Ambulance Personnel, herein called the Union. 2. The Employer operates an ambulance service in and about the Greater Rochester, New York, area. It purchases its own equipment and hires, schedules, and supervises its own employees. During the calen- dar year 1973, its gross annual revenues were $232,500, of which $85,575.07 represented payments for nonretail services rendered to institutional users in the State of New York,' each of whom annually pur- chased goods and services outside the State of New York in excess of $50,000.2 During the same period, the Employer made local purchases of materials, sup- plies, merchandise, or services in the amount of $60,083.40. 3. The State Board has not made any formal find- ings concerning the aforesaid commerce data and the Employer does not know whether the Union admits or denies the commerce data. 4. In its brief, the Employer contends that the as- sertion of jurisdiction over it is warranted by virtue of its more than $50,000 annual nonretail services to i Such payments were- Monroe County Department of Social Services, $43,174 20, Genesee Valley Medical Care, Inc , $20,979 12, Home Care Association, affiliated with Blue Cross-Blue Shield, $10,626 75, East Irondequott Central School District # 1, $3,591 00, New York State Board of Cooperative Education, $6,138 00, and New York State Department of Education (Rehabilitation), $1,06600 2 In its brief, the Employer alleges that it has affidavits from officials of the first four of the institutional users listed in fn I, above , which it will submit and which affirm that each of the users make out-of-state purchases of goods and services in excess of $50,000, and it further submits that the Board should take official notice that the State of New York makes out-of- state purchases of goods and materials in excess of $50,000 For purposes of this Advisory Opinion, the allegations of the affirming affidavits are accepted as true and official notice of New York State's out-of-state purchases is taken institutional users, albeit exempt employers under our Act, each of whom makes annual out-of-state pur- chases in excess of $50,000, and over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction if not exempt. 5. Although served with a copy of the petition, no reply as provided in the Board's Rules and Regula- tions has been filed by the State Board or the Union. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opin- ion that: 1. The Employer is a nonretail enterprise engaged in the operation of an ambulance service in and about the Greater Rochester, New York, area. 2. The Board's current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprise is an inflow or outflow, direct or indirect, across state lines of at least $50,000.' 3. As indicated above, the Employer annually ren- ders more than $50,000 worth of nonretail ambulance services to the institutional users listed in footnote 1, above, five of whom appear to be exempt from our jurisdiction under Section 2(2) of the Act as govern- mental bodies.' These institutional users are nonretail enterprises each of whom makes annual out-of-state purchases in excess of $50,000. Such purchases consti- tute sufficient direct inflow across state lines to justify assertion of jurisdiction over each of the institutional users under the Siemons standard, if they were not otherwise exempt under Section 2(2) of the Act. In Carroll-Naslund,5 the Board treated as indirect out- flow for jurisdictional purposes services rendered to a city whose operations were of a magnitude which would justify asserting jurisdiction over it, if it were not exempt under Section 2(2) of the Act. Similarly, the Employer's ambulance services to the exempt and nonexempt institutional users constitute indirect out- flow for jurisdictional purposes herein, and, since such indirect outflow annually exceeds $50,000, it sa- tisfies the current standard for the Board' s assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises.6 Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended, that on the allegations submitted here- in the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with respect to disputes cog- nizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. J Sremons Mailing Service , 122 NLRB 81, 85 (1958) Sec 2(2) of the Act provides that the "term 'employer' . shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation. or any State or political subdivision thereof " 6 Carroll-Naslund Disposal, Inc, 152 NLRB 861, 863 (1965) 6 See Bob's Ambulance Service, 178 NLRB I (1969) 212 NLRB No. 60