Andover Protective Service, Inc.

ANDOVER PROTECTIVE SERVICE, INC 485 Andover Protective Service, Inc. and Armored Car Chauffeurs and Guards, Local 820, I.B.T. Case AO-184 June 30, 1976 ADVISORY OPINION On May 20, 1976, a petition for an advisory opin- ion, with exhibits attached, was filed by Andover Protective Service, Inc., herein called the Employer, 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 activities of the Employer. In pertinent part, the petition and exhibits allege as follows: (1) On December 19, 1975, Armored Car Chauf- feurs and Guards, Local 820, I.B.T., herein called the Union, filed with the New York State Labor Rela- tions Board, herein called the State Board, Docket SE-49459, a petition for investigation and certifica- tion of representatives with respect to certain em- ployees of the Employer. (2) The Employer operates a courier and escort service in Smithtown, New York, providing guard and armored car services. The petition alleges that the Employer is engaged in interstate commerce in that the goods hauled and protected consist of cur- rency which finds its way into interstate commerce. It is further alleged that the Employer has an inflow in excess of $50,000 per year in its nonretail service business and purchases substantial materials used in its operation outside the State of New York. (3) The State Board has not made any findings concerning the above commerce data and the Union neither admits nor denies this data. (4) There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same labor dispute 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 any party. On the basis of the foregoing, the Board is of the opinion that: 1. The Employer operates a courier and escort ser- vice which provides guard and armored car services in Smithtown, New York. 2. The current standard for the assertion of juris- diction over nonretail enterprises is an annual inflow or outflow, direct or indirect, across state lines, of at least $50,000.' On the basis of the allegations submit- ted herein, we conclude that the Employer's opera- tions satisfy the Board's current jurisdictional stan- dards. 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. 1 Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85 (1958) 225 NLRB No. 64