Boston Road Development Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1992

307 N.L.R.B. 822 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

822
307 NLRB No. 130
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The name of the labor organization has been changed to reflect
the new official name of the International Union.
Boston Road Development Corp. and Local 966,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO.1 Case AO–296
June 8, 1992
ADVISORY OPINION
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
On May 5, 1992, the Petitioner, Boston Road Devel-
opment Corp., filed a petition for an advisory opinion
pursuant to Sections 101.39 and 102.98 et seq. of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, seeking to determine
whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over its
operations.
In pertinent part, the petition alleges as follows:
1. There is currently pending before the New York
State Employment Relations Board (NYSERB) a peti-
tion filed by the Union (Case No. SE-58147) under
Section 705(3) of the New York State Labor Relations
Act requesting to be certified as exclusive representa-
tive of certain of the Petitioner’s employees.
2. The Petitioner is a New York corporation. It owns
and operates a two apartment building unit located at
150/190 West Burnside Avenue, in Bronx, New York,
consisting of 134 residential apartment units and 2
commercial units. Together, they constitute the apart-
ment building unit at issue before the NYSERB.
3. During the 12-month period ending on or about
March 31, 1992, the gross revenues received by the
Petitioner for and on account of the 134 residential
apartment units exceeded $940,000, and the gross rev-
enues received for and on account of the 2 commercial
units was $26,400. During the same 12-month period,
the Petitioner directly and/or indirectly purchased in
excess of $50,000 worth of goods and services from
outside the State of New York.
4. The Petitioner is unaware whether the Union ad-
mits or denies the above commerce data, and the
NYSERB has made no findings with respect thereto.
5. There are no representation or unfair labor prac-
tice proceedings involving the Petitioner and the Union
pending before the Board.
Although all parties were served with a copy of the
petition for an advisory opinion, none has filed a re-
sponse thereto, as permitted by Section 102.101 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
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 dis-
cretionary standard for asserting jurisdiction over
apartment buildings. See Parkview Gardens, 166
NLRB 697 (1967). As the petition alleges that the total
gross revenues received by the Petitioner from the op-
eration of its two apartment building unit exceeds
$966,000, the Petitioner clearly satisfies the Board’s
discretionary jurisdictional standard. As the petition
further alleges that the purchases of goods and services
from outside the State of New York exceeded $50,000,
the Petitioner also satisfies the Board’s statutory stand-
ard for asserting jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based on
the foregoing allegations and assumptions, the Board
would assert jurisdiction over the Petitioner.