Z. F. Management, Agent

332 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sha Realty, a Limited Partnership, Juda Wolf, Gen- eral Partner, Owner and 189 Ross Associates, a Limited Partnership, Juda Wolf, General Part- ner, Owner and Has Realty, a Limited Partner- ship, Juda Wolf, General Partner, Owner, Samuel Kestenbaum d/b/a Z. F. Management, Agent and Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case A0-277 July 31, 1990 ADVISORY OPINION BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND OVIATT On June 12, 1990, the Petitioner, Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, AFL- CIO, filed a petition for an advisory opinion with the Board, pursuant to Sections 102 98(a) and 102 99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, seek- ing to determine whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over the above-named Employers The petition, in pertinent part, alleges as follows 1 There are currently pending before the New York State Labor Relations Board (the SLRB) three separate petitions—Case Nos SEE-57331, SEE-57332, SEE-57333-filed by the Employers seeking an election among three unit employees employed at the Employers' residential facilities to determine whether a majority of the employees wish to be represented for collective-bargaining purposes by the Petitioner 1 2 The Employers each own a residential apart- ment facility located in Brooklyn, New York 3 The Employers are joint employers who re- ceive gross annual revenues in excess of $500,000, and purchase goods and materials, such as heating oil and electricity, valued in excess of $50,000, from firms located within the State of New York which, in turn, purchase said goods and materials from outside the State of New York The SLRB has made no findings with respect to the above- commerce data 'Prior to flung their petitions with the SLRB, the Employers had filed a charge with the Regional Director for Region 29 (Case 29-CB-7279) alleging that the Union was unlawfully refusing to bargain concerning the employees employed at its residential facilities The Regional Direc- tor however, declined to Issue a complaint, relying on the ground ad- vanced by the Union, that the Employers' employees at the apartment facilities constituted separate bargaining units, each containing only one employee, and that It was against Board policy to hold elections in single-person units 4 The Employers apparently admit the above commerce data, however, because they previously filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Union in Case 29-CB-7279 which alleged, inter aim, that they were engaged in interstate com- merce 5 There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same labor dis- pute pending before this Board On June 25, 1990, the Employers, through their managing agent, Z F Management, filed a state- ment of position opposing the petition The Em- ployers contend that the Board should decline to issue an advisory opinion because the Petitioner had an opportunity to raise the jurisdictional issue at the State Board hearing on their petitions but failed to do so On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that As noted, following the filing of the Employers' petitions with the State Board, a hearing was held in which the Petitioner fully participated At no time during the heanng did the Petitioner question the jurisdiction of the SLRB Further, we have been administratively advised by the SLRB that the elections were held on June 22, 1990 General- ly, the Board accords the same effect to the results of a state-board election as it does to its own elec- tions 2 Thus, in light of the elections held among the Employers' employees in the above-mentioned SLRB proceedings, it is clear that the Board would not, at this time, entertain a representation petition for an election among the same employees 3 For this reason, and as the Petitioner did not raise the jurisdictional question at any time during the State Board hearing, we find that no useful purpose would be served by issuing an advisory opinion on the issue of the Board's commerce jurisdiction over the Employers' residential apartment facilities 4 Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for an Advisory Opinion is dismissed 'See We Transport, 198 NLRB 949 (1972), Elmsford Transportation, 213 NLRB 257 (1974) 'As noted, the Union sought dismissal of Case 29-CH-7279 on the grounds that the three units involved only one employee each There is no contention that these circumstances have changed Nonetheless, as is our practice in Advisory Opinion proceedings, we do not express any view concerning the appropriateness under our Act of the bargaining units petitioned for by the Employers in the State Board proceedings *Compare, Elmsford Transportation, supra See also Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, 204 NLRB 159 (1973) 299 NLRB No 41