G. R. Coach And Chieppo Bus Co.

582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Chieppo Bus Company and its alter egos, Comfort Coach and Nicholas Chieppo d/b/a G. R. Coach and Chieppo Bus Company and Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case AO-252 18 February 1986 ADVISORY OPINION BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS, JOHANSEN, AND BABSON A petition was filed on 17 September 1985 by Chieppo Bus Company, Comfort Coach, Nicholas Chieppo d/b/a G. R. Coach, Lucky, Inc., Chieppo Coaches, and Chieppo Transportation, the Petition- ers, for an advisory opinion seeking to determine whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petitioners. On 24 September 1985, the Peti- tioners filed an amendment to the petition; on 4 October 1985, the General Counsel filed a brief in opposition to the petition and a motion to dismiss the petition. In pertinent parts, the submissions allege as fol- lows: The Petitioners are engaged in the transportation business. On 30 November 1983 the National Labor Relations Board, Subregion 39, issued an order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint, and notice of hearing in Cases 39-CA-1699 and 39- CA-1798, alleging that Chieppo Bus Company and its alter egos, Comfort Coach and Nicholas Chieppo d/b/a G. R. Coach, violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act.' In its answer to the 1 On 16 April 1985 a third amended charge was filed in Case 39-CA- 1798, alleging Lucky, Inc., Chieppo Coaches, and Chieppo Transporta- consolidated complaint, as well as in its petition for advisory opinion, the Petitioners admit that during the 12-month period prior to the issuance of the consolidated complaint, it purchased and received at its Connecticut facilities goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Connecticut and that it derived gross revenues in excess of $250,000. In its amendment to the petition for Advisory Opinion, the Petitioners allege that there is current- ly a proceeding before the New Haven Probate Court in which Board jurisdiction is an issue. - On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that: Because there is an outstanding statutory unfair labor practice proceeding in which a binding adju- dication of the jurisdictional issue can be obtained and no other considerations suggesting an urgent need for earlier Board _ determination of the juris- dictional question alone have been brought to the Board's attention, the underlying, purpose of the advisory opinion procedures will be better served, and unnecessary duplication and possible confusion will be avoided, if the Board follows the practice of confining itself -solely to the resolution of the statutory proceeding before it.2 Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for Advisory Opinion be dismissed.3 tion as additional alter egos of Clueppo Bus Company . That charge is presently pending in the Subregional Office. 2 Standby One Associates, 270 NLRB 444 (1984); Hotel & Restaurant Employees Local 49 (Diamond Springs Hotel), 236 NLRB 711 (1978). a In view of our determination herem, we find it unnecessary to decide the issue raised by the General Counsel-whether the petition fails to sat- isfy the requirements of Secs. 102.98 and 102 .99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. 278 NLRB No. 71