Dome Associates

234 316 NLRB No. 45 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 The petition, at par. 4, cites Case SE–58849 but makes reference to its Exh. A which relates to Case SU–58849, regarding a charge alleging an unfair labor practice before the NYSERB. Whether there is an unfair labor practice proceeding or a representation proceeding (or both) pending before the NYSERB, there is a proceeding pend- ing before the NYSERB. 2 The charge was filed by the Union on January 6, 1995, in Case 2–CA–28084, alleging that Dome Associates discharged Trevor Watts because of his union activities, in violation of Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3 See Humboldt General Hospital, 297 NLRB 258 (1989). Dome Associates, Employer Petitioner and United Service Employees Union, Local 377. Case AO– 317 January 31, 1995 ORDER BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, COHEN, AND TRUESDALE Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula- tions, on December 15, 1994, Dome Associates (the Employer) filed a petition for Advisory Opinion about whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over its operations. In pertinent part, the petition alleges as fol- lows: 1. A proceeding, Case SE–58849, is currently pend- ing before the New York State Employment Relations Board (NYSERB) in which United Service Employees Union, Local 377 (the Union) is seeking certification of a one-member unit at 325 West 51st Street, a 20- unit residential apartment building managed by the Employer that also includes one commercial space.1 2. The Employer, a partnership, is engaged in real estate management and maintains its principal place of business at 169 West 80th Street, New York, New York. 3. During the past 12-month period, the Employer had gross revenues in excess of $1 million and pur- chased materials or services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State of New York. 4. The Union has neither admitted nor denied the commerce data, nor has that data been considered by the New York State Employment Relations Board. 5. There are no representation or unfair labor prac- tice proceedings involving the Employer pending be- fore the Board. On January 4, 1995, the Union filed an opposition to the petition for Advisory Opinion, asserting that the petition must be dismissed or denied on the ground that the Union has filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board.2 The Union further stated that it could neither admit nor deny the commerce data submitted by the Employer. On January 10, 1995, the Board issued a Notice to Show Cause why the petition for Advisory Opinion should not be dismissed or denied. No responses were filed. Having duly considered the matter, we deny the Em- ployer’s petition for an Advisory Opinion on the ground that there is an unfair labor practice proceeding pending before the Board’s Regional Office in which all jurisdictional issues may be resolved. The Board’s longstanding policy, based on sound principles of ad- ministrative efficiency and economy, is that a petition for Advisory Opinion will not be entertained where, as here, an unfair labor practice proceeding is pending and there is no indication of a need for a more expedi- tious jurisdictional determination.3 Accordingly, as there is no indication in the instant proceeding that a more expeditious jurisdictional deter- mination is needed, we deny the petition for Advisory Opinion.