R & C Management Co. and Roth Bros. Partnership Co.

R & C MANAtGEMENT CO R & C Management Co. and Roth Bros. Partnership Co. and Local 32B-32J, Service Employees In- ternational Union. Case AO-238 September 30, 1982 ADVISORY OPINION BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND HUNTER A petition, and a memorandum in support there- of, was filed on August 23, 1982, by R & C Man- agement Co. and Roth Bros. Partnership Co., herein called the Petitioners, for an advisory opin- ion, in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, seeking to deter- mine whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petitioners. In pertinent part the petition and memorandum allege as follows: (1) There is pending before the New York State Labor Relations Board, called the State Board, a representation proceeding, docket number SE- 54398, filed by Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, herein called the Union, seek- ing an election among the employees employed at the apartment house located at 40 Lincoln Road, Brooklyn, New York, which is owned by Roth Bros. Partnership Co. and managed by R & C Management Co. (2) R & C Management Co. is a copartnership engaged in the business of owning, operating, and managing, for itself and others, residential apart- ment housing. Currently it has under its manage- ment 25 residential apartment buildings which yield a gross rental income of approximately $5 million per annum, and its purchases of goods and services in interstate commerce exceed $50,000 per annum. Roth Bros. Partnership Co., also a copartnership, owns several apartment houses, including the premises described above, which are managed by R & C Management Co. and in which the partners of R & C Management Co. have varying-sized equity interests. The Petitioners maintain and share their principal places of business at the same ad- dress located in Rosedale, New York. (3) The Union neither admits nor denies the aforesaid 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 dis- pute pending before this Board. (5) Although the parties have been served with a copy of the petition, no response, as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations, has been filed by any of them. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that: (1) Petitioner R & C Management Co. is a co- partnership engaged in the business of owning, op- erating, and managing, for itself and others, several residential apartment buildings. As the total annual gross dollar volume of business of all the apartment buildings operated by R & W Management Co. ex- ceeds the $500,000 standard established by the Board for residential apartments, and its purchases of goods and services in interstate commerce exceed $50,000 per annum,1 we would assert juris- diction over the operations of Petitioner R & C Management Co. (2) Petitioner Roth Bros. Partnership Co., a co- partnership, owns several apartment houses, includ- ing the premises described above, which are man- aged by R & C Management Co. and in which the partners of R & C Management Co. have varying- sized interests. Each Petitioner maintains and shares its principal place of business at the same lo- cation. Because of the inadequacy of the petition herein, with respect to Petitioner Roth Bros. Part- nership Co., due to the absence of any commerce data relating to its business operations, we are unable to make a meaningful determination as to whether statutory or legal jurisdiction exists over Petitioner Roth Bros. Partnership Co., or whether, assuming arguendo, that statutory or legal jurisdic- tion does exist, the Petitioner's operations meet the dollar-volume standard established by the Board for residential apartments. Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Sec- tion 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, upon the allegations submitted herein, the Board would assert jurisdic- tion over the operations of Petitioner R & C Man- agement Co., with respect to labor disputes cogni- zable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act, and that upon the allegations submitted herein with re- spect to Petitioner Roth Bros. Partnership Co., the Board is unable to conclude whether or not it would assert jurisdiction over the operations of said Petitioner. 2 ' See Karl Gerber. Max Taetle. Nathan lMetz A Estate of Bernard Katz, Co-Partners d/b/a Park view Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967) 2 We are also unable to conclude, based on the allegations herein. whether the Petitioner. R & C Management Co. and Roth Bros. Partner- ship Co.. are either joint or single employers. 264 NLRB No. 117 873