Adelsberg & Co.

952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Adelsberg & Co. and Service Employees International Union, Local 32B, AFL-CIO. Case AO-185 August 17, 1976 ADVISORY OPINION By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND WALTHER A petition was filed on May 24, 1976, by Adels- berg & Co., herein called the Employer , for an Advi- sory 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 jurisdiction over the Employer's operations . On June 7, 1976, the Employer submitted a memorandum in support of its petition. In pertinent part the petition and memorandum allege as follows: (1) There is pending before the New York State Labor Relations Board, herein called the State Board, a representation proceeding , docket Number SE-49727, filed by Service Employees International Union, Local 32B , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, seeking to be certified as the representative for the building service employees employed by the Employer at one of the apartment buildings for which the Employer acts as managing agent. (2) The Employer is a partnership engaged in, in- ter alia, the business of performing the services of a managing agent for residential apartment buildings in the city of New York. It has agreements with the owners of such apartment buildings whereby the Em- ployer performs services such as collecting rent from tenants, operating, maintaining, and repairing the apartments, purchasing supplies, and performing all financial recordkeeping and reporting obligations. The Employer is responsible for the hiring and super- vision of employees who perform the building serv- ices provided to the tenants . During the preceding 12 months, the Employer has managed apartment buildings which derived gross rent revenues in excess of $500,000; and the value of the Employer's annual purchases of goods, supplies , commodities, and serv- ices which originated outside the State of New York is in excess of $50,000. (3) The Union neither admits nor denies the afore- said commerce data and the State Board has made no findings with respect thereto. (4) There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same labor dispute pending before this Board. (5) Although the parties have been served with a copy of this petition, no response, as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations, has been filed by any of them. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opin- ion that: (1) The Employer is engaged in the business of providing management services to residential apart- ment buildings, such as collecting rent from tenants, operating, maintaining, and repairing the apart- ments, purchasing supplies, and performing all finan- cial recordkeeping and reporting obligations. It is responsible for the hiring and supervision of employ- ees who perform the building services. (2) The Employer contends that the Board should assert jurisdiction over its operations. It relies on James Johnston Property Management, 221 NLRB 301 (1975), in support of its contention that the total- ity of an employer's operations should be considered in determining whether any portion of those opera- tions meets the Board's jurisdictional standards. The Board has a longstanding practice of aggre- gating gross revenues derived from all the buildings managed by an employer of this type.' As noted above, the gross rental revenues derived from the apartments managed by the Employer are in excess of $500,000. As the total annual gross dollar volume of business of all the apartment buildings managed by the Employer exceeds the $500,000 standard es- tablished by the Board for residential apartments,2 we would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's op- erations. Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, based on the allegations herein made, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the operations of the Employer with respect to labor dis- putes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. See James Johnston Property Management, supra, and cases cited therein 2 See Karl Gerber, Max Taetle, Nathan Metz & Estate of Bernard Katz, Co-Partners d/b/a Parkvtew Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967) 225 NLRB No. 137