Dilene Answering Service, Inc.

DILENE ANSWERING SERVICE, INC. 669 Dilene Answering Service, Inc. and United Telephone Answering & Communications Service Union, Local 780, AFL-CIO. Case AO-163 February 21, 1975 ADVISORY OPINION BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO This is a petition filed on December 23, 1974, by Dilene Answering Service, Inc., herein called the Employer, for an Advisory 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 jurisdic- tion over the Employer. Thereafter, on January 10, 1975, the Employer filed a supplementary petition, with an attached brief . On February 3, 1975, United Telephone Answering & Communications Service Union, Local 780, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, filed a response to the petition.' In pertinent part, the petition, the supplemental petition and brief, and the Union's response allege: (1) There is pending before the New York State Labor Relations Board, herein called the State Board, unfair labor practice charges filed by the United Telephone Answering & Communications Service Union, Local 780, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, docket numbers SU-48132, 48133, 48135, 48136, and 48142 involving the Employer's operation located in Spring Valley, New York. No complaint has issued. (2) The Employer owns and operates telephone answering services in Spring Valley, Yonkers, Mid- dletown, and New Rochelle, New York, and, except for the latter city, also owns and operates radio paging and beeper services from the same offices. The Yonkers and New Rochelle offices are both located in Westchester County, which is contiguous to Rockland County where the Spring Valley office is located, and both offices are well within 25 miles of the Spring Valley office. The Middletown office is in Orange County, which is contiguous to Rockland County and is approximately 30 to 35 miles from the Spring Valley office. Although organized as separate corporate entities, the Employer has common offi- cers, stockholders, and directors; has a common bookkeeping staff ; and there is common control and supervision over labor relation policies administered by Kenneth H. Iscol, the Employer's president who, as the sole operating owner, during the course of an average week, spends 1 full day at each location and, in addition thereto, keeps in constant telephonic communication with each location. (3) During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, the Employer grossed in excess of $100,000 at its Spring Valley operation and its operations in Yonkers and New Rochelle grossed approximately $500,000. There is no commerce data supplied with respect to the Employer's Middletown operation, since this office was acquired on or about December 4, 1974; however, the Employer asserts that if the Middle- town office is included its gross sales of its combined locations would be significantly higher than $600,000. During the past calendar year, more than $50,000 in purchases were made of pocket paging receivers used for the radio paging and beeper systems in the various offices, which were manufac- tured by a company located outside the State of New York. A large percentage of radio signals are transmitted outside the State of New York, in view of the fact that the Employer's offices are in proximity to the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and its telephone answering services are used to receive calls from people in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. The telephone switchboards used by the Employer are leased from the New York Telephone Company and, upon information and belief, these switchboard systems were manufactured outside the State of New York. (4) Unfair labor practice proceedings involving this labor dispute are pending before this Board. (5) 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 the state board. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that: The Employer owns and operates telephone an- swering services and radio paging and beeper services located in Yonkers, New Rochelle, Spring Valley, and Middletown, New York, which, for purposes of this Advisory Opinion, it is reasonable to assume, constitutes a single-integrated enterprise.2 The Employer asserts that it is Board policy to consider the combined total commerce data of the Employer's operations in determining the jurisdic- tional issue. Moreover, the Employer submits that under any applicable standard, retail or nonretail, jurisdiction would be appropriate. We agree. It is customary to consider for jurisdictional purposes the i In its response the Union contends that it has filed unfair labor practice there are charges pending, nor does the determination made herein preclude charges with this Board and that the most appropriate forum for the Board's the processing of the charges filed. determination of jurisdiction rests in the Board's Regional Office. There is 2 Front Porch Holding Corp., and Front Porch 82, Inc., 214 NLRB No. 117 nothing to preclude this Board from issuing an Advisory Opinion when (1974). 216 NLRB No. 108 670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD total combined commerce data of all of an employ- er's operations .3 Accordingly, we shall consider the combined annual gross volume of business of the Employer's four operations for jurisdictional purpos- es. The current standard for the Board's assertion of jurisdiction over a retail enterprise which falls within its statutory jurisdiction is that such an enterprise must do a gross volume of business totaling at least $500,000 annually.' The current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises is 3 Ibid. Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88 (1958). s Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 , 85 (1958). See also Answering, Inc., 215 NLRB No. 118 (1974), in which the Board asserted jurisdiction an annual inflow or outflow, direct or indirect, across state lines, of $50,000.5 From the foregoing, it is apparent that the Employer's operations would meet either the retail or nonretail standard to bring the Employer's total operations within the Board's statutory jurisdiction. Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the allegations herein made, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the opera- tions of the Employer with respect to labor disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. over an employer engaged in telephone answering services which were performed in excess of $50,000 for customers located out of State, and where the Employer purchased and received from out of State materials valued in excess of $50,000.