Kim Gorze

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kim Gorze and Paul A. Laurence Company and Build- ing Construction Laborers Local No. 1097. Case AO-213 May 23, 1979 ADVISORY OPINION On February 27, 1979, Kim Gorze, herein called the Petitioner, filed a petition pursuant to Section 102.98 and Section 102.99 of the National Labor Re- lations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, for an Advisory Opinion whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over the dispute be- tween the Petitioner and Paul A. Laurence Company, herein called the Employer, and Building Construc- tion Laborers Local No. 1097, herein called the Union. In pertinent part, the petition alleges as follows: I. There is pending in the District Court, Ninth Judicial District, State of Minnesota, herein called the State Court, a proceeding with docket number 12,637 filed by the Petitioner seeking to recover damages (I) against the Employer for refusing to rehire the Peti- tioner in accord with an express verbal agreement to do so and in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Union and (2) against the Union for breaching its duty of fair representation and for refusing to enforce the collec- tive-bargaining agreement. In this proceeding, the Employer and the Union have asserted, by way of defense, that jurisdiction over this matter is in the Board and not in the state court. 2. The Employer is a general contractor engaged in construction in Minneapolis and in International Falls, Minnesota. Commerce data relating to the Em- ployer's business operations has not been furnished because the Petitioner does not have sufficient infor- mation thereof. 3. The Petitioner alleges that he does not know whether the Employer's commerce data affecting the Board's jurisdictional standards are admitted or de- nied by the Employer and the Union, and that no findings have been made by an agency or court with respect to such data. However, he believes that such data invoking the Board's jurisdictional standards are admitted because both the Employer and the Union have asserted, in the state court proceeding, that the Board, and not the state court, has jurisdiction. 4. There is no representation or unfair labor prac- tice proceeding involving this matter pending before the Board. 5. Although served with a copy of the petition for Advisory Opinion, none of the parties have filed a response thereto as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opin- ion that: 1. The Employer, a general contractor, is a nonre- tail enterprise engaged in construction in Minneapolis and International Falls, Minnesota. 2. The Board's current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises is an inflow or outflow, direct or indirect, across state lines of at least $50,000.' Because of the inadequacy of the rec- ords herein due to the absence of any commerce data relating to the Employer's business operations, we are unable to make a meaningful determination as to whether statutory or legal jurisdiction exists over the Employer's operations2 or whether, assuming, argu- endo, that statutory or legal jurisdiction does exist, the Employer's operations meet the dollar-volume test of the Board's nonretail standard. Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, that, upon the allegations submitted herein, the Board is unable to conclude whether or not it would assert jurisdiction over the operations of the Employer herein. t Siemons Mailing Service. 122 NLRB 81, 85 (1958). 2 Broome- Tioga Chapter of the New York Stare Association for Retarded Children, Inc., 229 NLRB 459 (19771. 242 NLRB No. 57 446