205-215 Owners Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 25, 1994

314 N.L.R.B. 515 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

515
314 NLRB No. 89
205-215 OWNERS LTD.
1 We have been administratively advised by the NYSERB that
Case SU–58689 has been withdrawn.
2 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority
in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
3 See J.G. Coward Jr. Ditching Service, 139 NLRB 351 (1962).
205-215 Owners Ltd. and Paley Management Corp.
and United Service Employees Union, Local
377, R.W.D.S.U., AFL–CIO. Case AO–314
July 25, 1994
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS DEVANEY
AND BROWNING
Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, on May 23, 1994, Petitioners 205-215 Owners
Ltd. (205-215) and Paley Management Corp. (Paley)
filed a petition for Advisory Opinion as to whether the
Board would assert jurisdiction over their operations.
In pertinent part, the petition alleges that a proceeding,
Case No. SU–58689, is currently pending before the
New York State Employment Relations Board
(NYSERB) in which the Union is seeking recognition
by 205-215 and Paley of a one-employee bargaining
unit at 205-215 East 88 Street, New York, New York,
a building owned by 205-215 and managed by Paley.
The petition alleges additional facts concerning the na-
ture of the business of the Petitioners, including com-
merce data for these two organizations.
All parties were served with a copy of the petition
for Advisory Opinion, and the Union filed a response
on June 23, 1994, in which it states that the petition
must be dismissed and/or that the Board should decline
to issue an advisory opinion. In its response, the Union
also states that it has withdrawn the proceeding before
the NYSERB and includes a copy of its June 22, 1994
request for withdrawal of Case SU-58689 before the
NYSERB.1 The Union further contends that the Peti-
tioners have not submitted proof that they meet the
Board’s jurisdictional standards and does not agree that
the Petitioners are joint employers.
Having duly considered the matter,2 we deny the pe-
tition for Advisory Opinion. The Board’s longstanding
policy, based on sound principles of administrative ef-
ficiency and economy, is that a petition for Advisory
Opinion will not be entertained where, as here, there
is no proceeding pending before any state agency or
court which would make such an immediate jurisdic-
tional opinion necessary.3
Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for Advi-
sory Opinion is dismissed.