Allstate Realty Associates

ALLSTATE REALTY ASSOCIATES In the matter of Allstate Realty Associates. Case AO-268 June 13, 1989 ADVISORY OPINION BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT, HIGGINS, AND DEVANEY Pursuant to Section 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regu- lations, on May 15, 1989, Allstate Realty Associ- ates (the Petitioner) filed a petition for an advisory opinion as to whether the Board would assert juris- diction over its operations. In pertinent part the petition alleges as follows: 1. There is currently pending before the New York State Labor Relations Board (the SLRB) two unfair labor practice charges, Cases SU-57157 and SU-57167, filed by Local 32B, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (the Union). 2. The general nature of the Petitioner's business is real estate. The Petitioner manages and controls the residential premises located at 310 Beverly Road, Brooklyn, New York, which generates in excess of $429,000 per year in income. Additional- ly, the Petitioner manages and controls residential premises located at 415 Beverly Road, Brooklyn, New York, which generates in excess of $700,000; at 50 East 19th Street, Brooklyn, New York, which generates in excess of $260,000; and at 1299 Ocean Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, which generates in excess of $230,000. The Petitioner's combined income exceeds $1 million per year. The Petition- er's out-of-state oil purchases exceed $30,000 per year. 1101 3. The Petitioner is unaware whether the Union admits or denies the aforesaid commerce data and the SLRB had made no findings with respect thereto. 4. There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding' involving the same dispute pending before the Board. Although all parties were served with a copy of the petition for advisory opinion, none filed a re- sponse 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 juris- diction over residential buildings.' As the Petition- er alleges that it receives over $1 million in total annual imcome from the residential premises that it manages and controls, assuming the Petitioner is a single employer with respect to those premises, the Petitioner clearly satisfies that standard.2 As the Petitioner further alleges that its annual out-of-state purchases exceed $30,000, the Petitioner also clear- ly satisfies the Board's statutory standard for assert- ing jurisdiction. Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based on the foregoing allegations and assumptions, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petitioner. ' See Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967) (residential apartments), and Imperial House Condominium, 279 NLRB 1225 (1986), affil 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 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) 294 NLRB No. 85