1113 Holding Ltd

938 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the Matter of Martin Meyer d/b/a 1113 Holding Ltd Case AO-265 1 November 30 1988 ADVISORY OPINION BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS Pursuant to Sections 102 98(a) and 102 99 of the National Labor Relations Board s Rules and Regu lations on October 24 1988 Martin Meyer d/b/a 1113 Holding Ltd (the Petitioner) filed a petition for an advisory opinion as to whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over its operations In pertinent part the petition alleges as follows 1 A representation petition (Case SE-56916) is currently pending before the New York State Labor Relations Board (the State Board) in which Local 32E Service Employees International Union AFL-CIO (the Union) seeks to be certified as the collective bargaining representative of an employee of the Petitioner at its 2332-34 Creston Avenue Bronx New York location 2 The general nature of the Petitioners business is real estate The Petitioner manages and controls the residential premises located at 2332-34 Creston Avenue Bronx New York which generates in excess of $160 000 a year in income Additionally the Petitioner manages and controls residential premises located at 15 Featherbed Lane Bronx New York which generates in excess of $180 000 and 1940 Andrews Avenue Bronx New York which generates in excess of $190 000 The coin bined income exceeds $530,000 a year Petitioner s out of state oil purchases exceed $30 000 a year 3 The Petitioner is unaware whether the Union admits or denies the aforesaid commerce data and the State Board has made no findings with respect thereto 4 There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same dispute currently pending before the Board Although all parties were served with a copy of the petition for advisory opinion none has filed a response thereto as permitted by Section 102 101 of the Board s Rules and Regulations Having duly considered the matter, the Board is of the opinion that it would assert jurisdiction over the Petitioner The Board has established a $500 000 discretionary standard for asserting funs diction over residential buildings i As the Petition er alleges that its total annual income from the resi dential premises it manages and controls exceeds $530 000 assuming the Petitioner is a single em ployer with respect to those premises the Petition er clearly satisfies the Board s discretionary stand and 2 As the Petitioner further alleges that its annual out of state purchases exceed $30 000 the Petitioner also clearly satisfies the Board s statutory standard for asserting jurisdiction Accordingly the parties are advised that, based on the foregoing allegations and assumptions the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petition er 3 ' See Parkinew Gardens 166 NLRB 697 (1967) (residential apartments) and Imperial House Condominium 279 NLRB 1225 (1986) affd 831 F 2d 999 (11th Cir 1987) (condominiums and cooperatives) We assume that the residential premises referred to in the petition are one of these types of residential buildings Member Johansen who dissented in Impen a! House adheres to his position there 2 The Board has traditionally aggregated the gross revenues derived from all residential buildings managed by an employer in determining whether the employer satisfies the Board s discretionary standard See e g Mandel Management Co 229 NLRB 1121 (1977) 3 The Board s advisory opinion proceedings under Sec 102 98(a) of the Board s Rules and Regulations are designed primarily to determine whether an employers operations meet the Boards commerce stand ards for asserting jurisdiction Accordingly the instant Advisory Opinion is not intended to express any view whether the Board would certify the Union as representative of the petitioned for unit under Sec 9(c) of the Act See generally Sec 101 40(e) of the Boards Rules and Regulations 291 NLRB No 131