2229 Associates

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 15, 1992

307 N.L.R.B. 1289 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

1289
307 NLRB No. 194
2229 ASSOCIATES
1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority
in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
2 See SHA Realty, 299 NLRB 332 (1990), and cases cited there.
See also Box Tree Restaurant, 235 NLRB 926 (1978).
3 No contention is made here that the NYSERB certification is in-
valid because the employee’s preference was indicated in testimony
rather than in an election.
4 Although the Petitioners contend that the Union, by means of the
state proceeding, is attempting to circumvent the well-established
NLRB practice of denying certification to one-member units, the
Board generally does not express any view in advisory opinion pro-
ceedings concerning the appropriateness under the NLRA of the bar-
gaining units petitioned for in the state proceedings. See SHA Realty,
supra at fn. 3.
In the matter of 2229 Associates and Samaroo Man-
agement. Case AO–298
July 15, 1992
ORDER DENYING ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
on May 21, 1992, 2229 Associates and Samaroo Man-
agement (Petitioners), filed a petition for an Advisory
Opinion as to whether the Board would assert jurisdic-
tion over their operations. In pertinent part, the petition
and supporting exhibits and affidavit allege as follows:
1. On October 21, 1991, the Service Employees
International Union, Local 32E, AFL–CIO (the Union)
commenced a proceeding, Case No. SE-58036, before
the New York State Employment Relations Board
(NYSERB) in which the Union sought certification as
representative of a single-employee unit at a building
owned by 2229 Associates at 2229 Creston Avenue,
Bronx, New York. Thereafter, following a hearing at
which the Petitioners did not appear, on January 15,
1992, the NYSERB issued the requested certification
of representative to the Union based on the employee’s
testimony that he desired the Union to represent him.
2. Samaroo Management is engaged in the business
of rental building management. Samaroo Management
manages the building owned by 2229 Associates at
2229 Creston Avenue, which is a rental building with
33 residential units.
3. Samaroo Management and 2229 Associates are
jointly controlled and directed by Philip Samaroo, the
proprietor and general partner, respectively, of both or-
ganizations.
4. During the past calendar year, Samaroo Manage-
ment’s gross revenue from all sales or performance of
services equaled or exceeded $1 million, and its pur-
chases of materials or services directly from outside
the State exceeded $50,000.
5. The aforesaid commerce data has been neither ad-
mitted nor denied by the Union, and has not been con-
sidered by the NYSERB.
6. There is no representation or unfair labor practice
proceeding pending before the Board.
Although all parties were served with a copy of the
petition for an advisory opinion, none filed a response.
Having duly considered the matter,1 we deny the pe-
tition for an advisory opinion. The Board generally ac-
cords the same effect to a state-issued certification as
it does to its own certifications.2 Here, as indicated
above, within the past year the NYSERB issued a cer-
tification of representative to the Union based on the
unit employee’s testimony at the hearing that he de-
sired the Union to represent him.3 Although the Peti-
tioners did not appear at the hearing, the certification
indicates that they were duly served with a notice
thereof. Further, there is no indication in the record be-
fore us that the Petitioners ever questioned the jurisdic-
tion of the NYSERB in the state proceeding. Accord-
ingly, as it is clear that the Board normally would not
at this time entertain a representation petition in the
same unit, and as the Petitioners here apparently did
not raise the jurisdictional issue in the state proceeding
notwithstanding that they were notified of their oppor-
tunity to appear, we decline in deference to the state
certification to issue an Advisory Opinion.4
Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for an
Advisory Opinion is dismissed.