Maayan Estates, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1981

253 N.L.R.B. 1214 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Maayan Estates, Inc., and Planning Efficiency Man-
agement and Local 32B-32J, Service Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO. Case AO-229
January 9, 1981
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS, TRUEDALE, AND ZIMMERMAN
The petition herein was filed on October 28,
1980, by Maayan Estates, Inc., herein called the
owner, and Planning Efficiency Management,
herein called managing agent or PEM, collectively
called the Employer, for an advisory opinion in
conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amend-
ed, requesting a determination whether the Board,
on the basis of its current jurisdictional standards,
would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's dis-
pute with Local 32B-32J, Service Employees In-
ternational Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union. On November 7, 1980, the Employer filed a
memorandum of fact and law in support of the pe-
tition and the Union filed a response to the peti-
tion.
In pertinent part, the petition, memorandum, and
response allege as follows:
1. Pending before the New York State Labor
Relations Board, herein called the State Board, is a
representation proceeding, Docket Number SE-
52968, filed by the Union seeking to represent the
building service employees at the Employer's 30
Magaw Place, New York, New York, building. In
its petition, the Union, named Local 670, Station-
ary Engineers, Firemen, Maintenance and Service
Employees Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local
670, as a labor organization claiming to represent
these employees. As a result of a contract with the
owner, these employees are presently represented
by Local 670.
2. The owner, Maayan Estates, Inc., owns the
residential apartment building located at 30 Magaw
Place in New York City which is managed by
PEM, the managing agent. No commerce data has
been submitted with respect to the operations of
the owner although the Union asserts, on informa-
tion and belief, that the owner owns only the build-
ing in question and does not derive therefrom
annual income in excess of $500,000. However, the
Employer alleges that PEM manages not only the
premises involved herein, but also two residential
apartment properties at 101 National Boulevard,
Long Beach, New York, and at 25 Nagle Avenue,
New York, New York. In addition, in conjunction
with another individual, PEM manages the residen-
tial apartment building at 33 Nostrand Avenue,
253 NLRB No. 160
Brooklyn, New York. The gross annual revenues
from these four residential buildings is approxi-
mately $730,000. PEM purchases goods and serv-
ices involved in interstate commerce valued in
excess of $50,000.
3. The Union alleges that it has a long history of
collective bargaining at the owner's premises in-
volved herein, having won a State Board election
on or about January 29, 1953. It also noted that the
owner had been the subject of unfair labor practice
charges before the State Board. Because, in its
view, the owner "heretofore had not been engaged
in commerce," the Union, instituted on or about
July 31, 1980, the representation proceeding cur-
rently pending before the State Board. Upon infor-
mation and belief, the Union asserts that the instant
petition was filed with the intent to delay the State
Board proceeding and that in these circumstances
and "in view of the long history of [the Employ-
er's] nonassertion of the right" to Board jurisdic-
tion, it would not effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
4. Neither the Union nor Local 670 has admitted
or denied the aforesaid commerce data and the
State Board has made no findings with respect
thereto.
5. Although served with a copy of the petition
for advisory opinion, neither Local 670 nor the
State Board has filed a response thereto as permit-
ted by the Board's Rules and Regulations.
6. There is no representation or unfair labor
practice proceeding involving the same labor dis-
pute pending before the Board.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Board is of the
opinion that:
1. The Employer, the petitioning owner and
managing agent, PEM, is engaged in the business
of owning and managing an apartment house at 30
Magaw Place, New York, New York. PEM also
manages three other residential apartment buildings
in New York.
2. The Board's current standard for the assertion
of jurisdiction over either owners of residential
buildings or property managing agents, who come
within the Board's legal jurisdiction, is a gross
annual revenue in excess of $500,000.1 As indicated
above, although the petitioning owner herein may
not derive $500,000 annual gross revenues from its
residential apartment building, the managing agent
does generate in excess of $500,000 annually from
the residential apartment buildings it manages and,
therefore, the collective Employer herein meets the
aforesaid monetary standard. As the more than
t Karl Gerber, Max Taeule, Nathan Metz & Estate of Bernard Katz. Co-
Partnerv d/b/a Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967); Jamev Johnston
Property Management, 221 NLRB 301 (1975).
1214
MAAYAN ESTATES, INC.
$50,000 purchases by the managing agent of goods
and services involved in interstate commerce are
sufficient to establish the Board's legal jurisdiction,
the assertion of jurisdiction over the Employer is
warranted.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Sec-
tion 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, thatbased on the allegations
herein the Board would assert jurisdiction over the
Employer with respect to labor disputes cognizable
under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.2
' We find no merit in the Uniln's contention that it wlould t notfflli
ate the policies of the Acl to assert jurisdiction oer the nlplcr t,-
cause the Board had prevlously not asserted jurisdlclion oevcr the I.nl
ployer and ecause the instant petition allegedly was inltended to dela
the pending State Board representation proceeding
1215