205-215 Owners Ltd.

515 314 NLRB No. 89 205-215 OWNERS LTD. 1 We have been administratively advised by the NYSERB that Case SU–58689 has been withdrawn. 2 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. 3 See J.G. Coward Jr. Ditching Service, 139 NLRB 351 (1962). 205-215 Owners Ltd. and Paley Management Corp. and United Service Employees Union, Local 377, R.W.D.S.U., AFL–CIO. Case AO–314 July 25, 1994 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR ADVISORY OPINION BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS DEVANEY AND BROWNING Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula- tions, on May 23, 1994, Petitioners 205-215 Owners Ltd. (205-215) and Paley Management Corp. (Paley) filed a petition for Advisory Opinion as to whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over their operations. In pertinent part, the petition alleges that a proceeding, Case No. SU–58689, is currently pending before the New York State Employment Relations Board (NYSERB) in which the Union is seeking recognition by 205-215 and Paley of a one-employee bargaining unit at 205-215 East 88 Street, New York, New York, a building owned by 205-215 and managed by Paley. The petition alleges additional facts concerning the na- ture of the business of the Petitioners, including com- merce data for these two organizations. All parties were served with a copy of the petition for Advisory Opinion, and the Union filed a response on June 23, 1994, in which it states that the petition must be dismissed and/or that the Board should decline to issue an advisory opinion. In its response, the Union also states that it has withdrawn the proceeding before the NYSERB and includes a copy of its June 22, 1994 request for withdrawal of Case SU-58689 before the NYSERB.1 The Union further contends that the Peti- tioners have not submitted proof that they meet the Board’s jurisdictional standards and does not agree that the Petitioners are joint employers. Having duly considered the matter,2 we deny the pe- tition for Advisory Opinion. The Board’s longstanding policy, based on sound principles of administrative ef- ficiency and economy, is that a petition for Advisory Opinion will not be entertained where, as here, there is no proceeding pending before any state agency or court which would make such an immediate jurisdic- tional opinion necessary.3 Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for Advi- sory Opinion is dismissed.