Century Assets

CENTURY ASSETS In the Matter of David Landau, d/b/a Century Assets. Case AO-253 25 April 1986 ADVISORY OPINION BY CHAIRMAN DOTsoN AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND STEPHENS A petition was filed on 6 March 1986 by David Landau d/b/a Century Assets, the Petitioner, for an advisory opinion in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, seeking to determine whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petitioner. In pertinent part the petition alleges as follows: (1) There is pending before the New York State Labor Relations Board (State Board) a representa- tion petition, Case No. SE-55763, filed by Local 32E, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (the Union) by which the Union seeks to be certified as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of an employee of the Petitioner at its 2200 Tiebout Avenue, Bronx, New York location. (2) The general nature of the Petitioner's busi- ness is real estate. The Petitioner owns, operates, and controls the premises located at 2200 Tiebout Avenue, Bronx, New York, which generates in excess of $300,000 per year in income and business ventures. Additionally, the Petitioner owns, oper- ates, and controls premises located at 351 Ocean Avenue which generates over $200,000 per year in rental and business ventures and has partnership in- terests in other buildings in the New York City area from which the combined income exceeds $2,500,000 per year. (3) The Petitioner is unaware whether the Union admits or denies the aforesaid commerce data and 511 the State Board has made no findings with respect thereto. (4) There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving this labor dispute pending before the Board. Although all parties were served with a copy of the petition for advisory opinion, none has filed a response as permitted by the Board's Rules and Regulations. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that: (1) Although the Petitioner's submission indicates the combined gross annual revenue from its ven- tures, it fails to identify whether those ventures are commercial office buildings, residential apartment buildings, some other venture, or a combination of the same. The only description given is that the general nature of the business is "real estate." The Board, however, has different jurisdictional stand- ards for different "real estate" operations.) Thus, on the information before us we are unable to make a meaningful determination whether the Petitioner would meet the Board's jurisdictional standards. Accordingly, the parties are advised under Sec- tion 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations that, on the allegations submitted herein, the Board is unable to conclude whether it would assert juris- diction over the Petitioner. ' For example, the Board will assert jurisdiction over employers who operate commercial office buildings where $100,000 in gross annual reve- nue is derived therefrom of which $25,000 is derived from enterprises whose operations meet any of the Board's jurisdictional standards other than its indirect nonretail standards Mistletoe Operating Co, 122 NLRB 1534 (1959) On the other hand, the Board will assert jurisdiction over employers who operate residential apartment buildings where $500,000 in gross annual revenue is derived therefrom and the employer's out-of-state purchases are more than de minimis Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967) The facts given are insufficient to determine whether the Petition- er would meet either of these standards 279 NLRB No. 83