Marlake Associates

MARLAKE ASSOCIATES Marlake Associates and Marlake Islip Company and Local 307, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. Case AO-194 August 12, 1977 ADVISORY OPINION A petition with exhibits attached was filed on February 28, 1977, by Marlake Associates and Marlake Islip Company, herein also referred to as the Petitioners, 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, seeking to determine whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petition- ers. In pertinent part, the petition and exhibits allege as follows: I. There are pending before the New York State Labor Relations Board, herein called the State Board, three alleged unfair labor practice proceed- ings involving the Petitioners, filed by Local 307, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union. The Union has also filed unfair labor practice charges against Marlake Islip Company with the National Labor Relations Board. 2. In the petition, the Petitioners assert that Marlake Associates is a partnership which owns and operates an apartment complex on Long Island, New York, and that Marlake Islip Company is a partner- ship which owns and operates an apartment complex on Long Island and in Connecticut.' For the calendar year 1975, Marlake Islip Company's two locations received gross annual income in the amount of $828,373,2 and Marlake Associates re- ceived $216,249 from its Long Island location.3 The Petitioners allege that the 1976 figures will at least equal, if not exceed, the 1975 figures. I It is alleged that there is only the difference of one partner between the two partnerships, which constitute a common or joint owner, and that the three apartment complexes are commonly owned and controlled by the partnerships, which also have common control of labor relations. 2 The sum of $391,604 for the Long Island location and $436.769 for the Connecticut location. :1 The Petitioners assert that both companies and all locations must be considered together for the purpose of junsdiction. 4 Dilene Answering Service, Inc., 216 NLRB 669 (1975); Front Porch Holding Corp., and Front Porch 82, Inc., 214 NLRB 788 (1974). 3. The Union neither admits nor denies the aforesaid commerce data and the State Board has made no findings with respect thereto. 4. There are unfair labor practice proceedings 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. On the basis of the foregoing, the Board is of the opinion that: 1. Petitioners, Marlake Associates and Marlake Islip Company, own and operate apartment com- plexes located on Long Island, New York, and in the State of Connecticut and, for the purposes of this Advisory Opinion, it is reasonable to assume, constitute a single integrated enterprise.4 2. The thrust of the Petitioners' petition is that the totality of its operations must be considered in determining whether Petitioners' operations meet the Board's jurisdictional standards. The Board has a longstanding practice of aggregat- ing gross revenues derived from all the buildings operated by an employer of this type.5 As noted above, the gross annual income derived from the apartment complexes operated by the Petitioners, as a single enterprise, is in excess of $500,000. As the total annual gross dollar volume of business of all the apartment buildings operated by the Petitioners exceeds the $500,000 standard established by the Board for residental apartments, 6 we would assert jurisdiction over the Petitioners' operations. 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 Petitioners with respect to labor disputes cognizable under Section 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. s See Adelsberg & Co., 225 NLRB 952 (1976); James Johnston Property Management, 221 NLRB 301 (1975). and cases cited therein. Member Penello, who dissented in the James Johnston case, distinguishes the instant case on the ground that, unlike James Johnston, there is a showing herein that the owners and operators of the complexes are an integrated enterprise and, therefore, would aggregate the gross revenues. 6 See Karl Gerber, Max Taetle, Nathan Metz d Estate of Bernard Karz, Co-Partners d/b a Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967). 231 NLRB No. 55 335