Command Security Corp.

COMMAND SECURITY CORP In the matter of Command Security Corporation Case AO-266 March 31, 1989 ADVISORY OPINION BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT, HIGGINS, AND DEVANEY Pursuant to Sections 102 98(a) and 102 99 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions, on February 13, 1989, Command Security Corporation (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, Docket No SE- 56883, is currently pending before the New York State Labor Relations Board (the SLRB) in which Local 803, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Union) is seeking to represent certain security guards employed by the Petitioner at the City Uni- versity of New York, New York City Technology College, 300 Jay Street, Brooklyn, New York (the City University) Also pending before the SLRB is a refusal-to-bargain charge, Case No SU-56978, filed by the Union 2 The Petitioner is a New York corporation en- gaged in the business of providing guard and secu- rity services During calendar year 1988, the Peti- tioner had gross revenues in excess of $1 million, of which $250,000 were derived from contracts per formed for businesses located outside the State of New York and $500,000 were derived from serv- ices provided directly to businesses that were themselves engaged in commerce 3 The Petitioner is unaware whether the Union admits or denies the aforesaid commerce allega- tions 593 Although all parties were served with a copy of the petition for advisory opinion, none filed a formal response thereto Having duly considered the matter,' we find that, based on the allegations in the petition, the Petitioner would clearly satisfy the Board's com- merce standards 2 However, in addition to seeking a determination on the commerce issue, the petition also appears to seek a determination as to whether there are any other grounds, such as the nature of the Petitioner's relationship to the City University, on which the Board would decline to assert juris diction Such a determination would be inappropri- ate in the context of this proceeding, the Board's advisory opinion proceedings under Section 102 98(a) are designed primarily to determine whether an employer's operations meet the Board's commerce standards for asserting jurisdiction 3 Thus, while we are able to advise the Petitioner that it satisfies the Board's monetary standards for asserting jurisdiction, we are unable in this pro ceeding to resolve the ultimate issue presented Accordingly, it is ordered that, for the reasons set forth above, the petition for advisory opinion is dismissed ' At the time the Petitioner filed its petition for advisory opinion there was then pending before the Board the Petitioners request for review of the Acting Regional Directors dismissal on unit grounds of a representa tion petition the Petitioner had previously filed with the Board s Regional Office involving the same dispute (Case 2-RM- 1993) Ordinarily the Board will not consider a petition for advisory opinion in such a circum stance See International Bureau for Protection 236 NLRB 1356 (1978) However on February 28 1989 shortly after the petition for advisory opinion was filed the Board denied the Petitioners request for review The representation proceeding is therefore no longer pending Accord ingly as we are unaware of any other representation or unfair labor prac tice proceeding involving the dispute pending before the Board we have found it appropriate in this instance to consider the petition 2 See Globe Security Systems 137 NLRB 109 (1962) (applying $50 000 nonretail standard to employers providing guard and security services) 3 See St Paul Ramsey Medical Center 288 NLRB 913 (1988) and Nor colic & Drug Research 288 NLRB 912 (1988) See also 1113 Holding Ltd 291 NLRB 938 fn 3 (1988) 293 NLRB No 64