Gracious Living in Hawaii, Inc.

690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gracious Living in Hawaii, Inc., Petitioner and Holiday Senices, . Inc. and Semce Employees' International Union, Local 556, AFGCIO. Case AO- 196 July 7, 1977 ADVISORY OPINION On April 18, 1977, Gracious Living in Hawaii, Inc., herein called the Petitioner, filed a petition, with exhibits, 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 Petitioner. In pertinent part, the petition and exhibits allege as follows: 1. There is pending before the Hawaii Employ- ment Relations Board, herein called the State Board, a complaint, docket number HERB 77-4, filed by Service Employees' International Union, Local 556, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and Holiday Services, Inc., a former employer of some of the employees of the Petitioner herein. 2. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of providing janitorial and maintenance services, on a contract basis, to several employers in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Petitioner has provided such services since February 1977 to one of several employers, viz, Center Properties, Inc. Pursuant to written contract, the Petitioner receives $30,000 per month for janitorial services from Center Properties, which purchases goods and supplies from outside the State of Hawaii.1 I The petition alleges that Center Properties' out-of-state purchases of goods and supplies are in excess of $50,030 per year. Exh. B, submitted with the petition, however, shows that Center Properties' out-of-state purchases amount la $42.195.38. As noted above, Petitloner provides services to 3. Although Petitioner has not yet established a fiscal year, it projects a gross annual volume of business in excess of $360,000. 4. The above commerce data has been neither admitted nor denied by either the Union or Holiday Services, Inc., nor has the State Board made any findings in connection therewith. 5. There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same labor dispute pending before this Board. 6. Although served with a copy of the petition for advisory opinion, as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations, no party has filed a response. On the basis of the foregoing, the Board is of the opinion that: 1. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of providing janitorial and maintenance services to several employers in Honolulu, Hawaii. 2. The current standard for assertion of jurisdic- tion over nonretail enterprises is an annual inflow or outflow, direct or indirect, across state lines, of at least $50,000.2 Although the Petitioner projects a gross annual volume of business in excess of $360,000, all of which will be derived within the State of Hawaii, this alone is insufficient to meet the current standard for assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises, since Petitioner has no annual inflow or outflow, direct or indirect, across state lines of at least $50,000. 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 not assert jurisdiction over the operations of the Petitioner with respect to labor disputes cognizable under Sections 8,9, and I0 of the Act. several other employers and Petitioner assumes that all or some of the employers have customers outside the State of Hawaii. 2 Siemens Moiling Service. 122 NLRB 81 (1958). 230 NLRB No. 104