Lemle & Wolff, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1995

317 N.L.R.B. 1070 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

1070
317 NLRB No. 154
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The petition in AO-325 was filed by Lemle. The petition in AO-
326 was filed by both Lemle and Sherman.
2 The Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
3 See Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967) (residential apart-
ments); and Imperial House Condominium, 279 NLRB 1225 (1986),
affd. 831 F.2d 999 (11th Cir. 1987) (condominiums and coopera-
tives).
4 The Board has traditionally aggregated the gross revenues de-
rived from all residential buildings managed by an employer in de-
termining whether the employer satisfies the Board’s discretionary
standard. See, e.g., Mandel Management Co., 229 NLRB 1121
(1977). In so finding, we have assumed that the Employer is a single
employer with respect to the operations included in its commerce
data.
5 We also note that in a previous case, on the basis of similar
facts, the Board advised that it would assert jurisdiction over Lemle
at a different residential apartment building. Lemle & Wolff, 312
NLRB 138 (1993).
6 See CID-Sam Management Corp., 315 NLRB 1256 (1995); 373-
381 South Broadway Associates, 304 NLRB 1108 (1991).
7 The Board’s advisory opinion proceedings under Sec. 102.98(a)
are designed primarily to determine whether an employer’s oper-
ations meet the Board’s ‘‘commerce’’ standards for asserting juris-
diction. Accordingly, the instant Advisory Opinion is not intended
to express any view whether the Board would certify the Union as
representative of the unit involved here under Sec. 9(c) of the Act.
See generally Sec. 101.40 of the Board’s Rules.
Lemle & Wolff, Inc., Petitioner and Local 32E
Service Employees International Union, AFL–
CIO
9 Sherman Associates and Lemle & Wolff, Inc., Pe-
titioners and Local 32E Service Employees
International Union, AFL–CIO. Cases AO–325
and 326
June 30, 1995
ADVISORY OPINION
BY MEMBERS BROWNING, COHEN, AND
TRUESDALE
Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, on June 12, 1995, Lemle & Wolff, Inc. (Lemle)
and 9 Sherman Associates (Sherman), filed petitions
for Advisory Opinions as to whether the Board would
assert jurisdiction over their operations.1 In pertinent
part, the petition alleges as follows:
1. A proceeding, Case No. SU–58917–58921, is cur-
rently pending before the New York State Employment
Relations Board (NYSERB) in which the Union claims
that Lemle has refused to bargain with the Union, in
violation of Section 704 of the New York State Labor
Relations Act in a one-person unit at a 53-unit residen-
tial apartment building managed by Lemle located at
585 West 204th Street, New York, New York, and in
a one-person unit at a rental building with 96 residen-
tial units and 3 commercial units owned by Sherman
and managed by Lemle located at 9 Sherman Avenue,
New York, New York.
2. Lemle is a New York corporation engaged in real
estate management.
3. During the past calendar year Lemle purchased
materials and services valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from outside the State of New York and had
gross receipts in excess of $1 million solely from the
operation of residential buildings in the State of New
York.
4. Lemle and Sherman are jointly controlled and di-
rected by Frank Analante, the proprietor and general
partner, respectively, of both organizations. Lemle su-
pervises and directs the terms and conditions of em-
ployment at the building located at 9 Sherman Avenue,
New York, New York, as well as the day-to-day ac-
tivities of the single employee employed at that build-
ing.
5. The Union neither admits nor denies the aforesaid
commerce data and the NYSERB has not made any
findings with respect thereto.
6. There are no representation or unfair labor prac-
tice proceedings involving the Employers pending be-
fore the Board.
Although all parties were served with a copy of the
petition for Advisory Opinions, no response was filed.
Having duly considered the matter,2 we find that the
Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employers.
The Board has established a $500,000 discretionary
standard for asserting jurisdiction over residential
buildings.3 As the petitions allege that Lemle’s total
annual income from residential buildings exceeds $1
million, it is clear that Lemle satisfies the Board’s dis-
cretionary standard.4 As the petitions further allege that
Lemle’s annual out-of-state purchases exceed $50,000,
Lemle also clearly satisfies the Board’s statutory stand-
ard for asserting jurisdiction.5 Furthermore, assuming
Sherman and Lemle are joint employers or a single
employer with respect to the building located at 9
Sherman Avenue, New York, New York, it is clear
that Sherman therefore also satisfies the Board’s juris-
dictional standards.6
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based on
the foregoing allegations and assumptions, the Board
would assert jurisdiction over the Employer.7