Tudor Realty Services

496 307 NLRB No. 85 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. 2 See Coastal Property Services, 299 NLRB 79 (1990); Imperial House Condominiums, 279 NLRB 1225 (1986) (reaffirming the es- tablishment of a $500,000 jurisdictional amount for residential con- dominiums and cooperatives), affd. 831 F.2d 999 (11th Cir. 1987). 3 The Board has traditionally aggregated the gross revenues de- rived from all residential buildings managed by an employer in de- termining whether the employer satisfies the Board’s discretionary standard. See, e.g., Mandel Management Co., 229 NLRB 1121 (1977). In so finding, we have assumed that the Employer is a single employer with respect to the operations included in its commerce data. 4 The allegations in the petition and the attachments do not ex- pressly state that all of the $500,000 gross revenue is related to man- agement of the buildings. However, we have nonetheless determined that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction. See 135–45 West Kingsbridge Avenue Assn., 300 NLRB 946 (1990). In addition to all of the other data set forth above, we rely on the stipulation in Case 2–RC–21145. Such a stipulation may be given binding effect as to the stipulating parties. See, e.g., Commissary of Great Race Pizza Shoppes, 277 NLRB 1175, 1176 (1985) (settle- ment stipulation of single employer status binding on Respondent as to General Counsel’s motion to add affiliated business enterprise as party after the respondent failed to comply with settlement). How- ever, such a stipulation cannot foreclose our inquiry where it is al- leged to be contrary to the Board’s jurisdictional policies (see East Newark Realty Corp., 115 NLRB 483 (1956)). Because the stipula- tion has been approved by the Regional Director for Region 2 and the parties herein, we rely in part on it in issuing this Advisory Opinion. 5 The Board’s Advisory Opinion proceedings under Sec. 102.98(a) are designed primarily to determine whether an employer’s oper- ations meet the Board’s ‘‘commerce’’ standards for asserting juris- diction. Accordingly, the instant Advisory Opinion is not intended to express any view whether the Board would certify the Union as a representative of the petitioned-for unit under Sec. 9(c) of the Act. See generally Sec. 101.40(e) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. Tudor Realty Services Corp. and Service Employees International Union, Local 32B-32J, AFL–CIO. Case AO–294 May 12, 1992 ADVISORY OPINION BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS OVIATT AND RAUDABAUGH Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula- tions, on April 14, 1992, Tudor Realty Services Corp. (the Employer) filed a petition for Advisory Opinion with attachments requesting a determination that the Board would assert jurisdiction over it. In pertinent part, the petition and attachments allege as follows: 1. A proceeding, Case SE–58143, is currently pend- ing before the New York State Employment Relations Board in which Service Employees International Union, Local 32B-32J, AFL–CIO (the Union) is re- questing certification as exclusive representative of cer- tain employees of the Employer. 2. The Employer is a New York corporation en- gaged in management of residential buildings including a residential cooperative building located at 741 West End Avenue, New York, New York. 3. In the past 12-month period, the Employer had gross revenues in excess of $500,000, purchased mate- rials or services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State of New York, and had revenues in excess of $50,000 from the sale or performance of services directly to customers outside the State of New York. The Employer states in its petition that the Union has neither admitted nor denied the aforesaid com- merce data and that the New York State Employment Relations Board has made no findings with respect thereto. Moreover, the petition also states that there are no representation or unfair labor practice proceedings involving the Employer and the Union pending before the Board. Following receipt of this petition for Advisory Opin- ion, the Board was administratively advised that in Case 2–RC–21145 currently pending in Region 2 of the NLRB, the Employer and the Union stipulated that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. This stipulation was signed on April 14, 1992, by the same attorney who signed the instant petition on April 10, 1992. Case 2–RC–21145 involves a different building and a different bargaining unit than the one at issue in this advisory opinion re- quest. Additionally, the Employer alleges that the Union is attempting to circumvent the Board’s jurisdic- tion by utilizing the procedures of the New York State Board for the 741 West End Avenue building. Based on this assertion, we have determined to render an Ad- visory Opinion herein. All parties were served with a copy of the petition for Advisory Opinion. However, none filed a response as permitted by Section 102.101 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. Having duly considered the matter,1 we find that the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer. The Board applies a $500,000 discretionary jurisdic- tional standard for residential condominiums and co- operatives.2 As the Employer alleges that its total an- nual income exceeds $500,000, assuming that this in- come is from the management of building properties, it is clear that the Employer would satisfy the Board’s discretionary standard.3 Moreover, the Employer fur- ther alleges that its annual out-of-state purchases of services and materials exceeds $50,000 and that its gross revenues from the sale or performance of serv- ices to customers located outside the State also exceeds $50,000. Accordingly, the Employer clearly satisfies the Board’s nonretail standard for asserting jurisdic- tion.4 Based on the above allegations, the parties are advised that the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer.5