Pomeroy Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1988

290 N.L.R.B. 1213 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

POMEROY CO
Pomeroy Co. and Service Employees International
Union, Local 32B-32J, AFL-CIO. Case AO-
263
September 22, 1988
ADVISORY OPINION
.,
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN, CRACRAFT, AND HIGGINS
Pursuant to ; Sections 102 98 and 102 99 of the
National Labor Relations Board 's Rules and Regu-
lations, on July 13, 1988 , the Pomeroy Company
(the Petitioner) filed a petition for an advisory
opinion as to whether the Board would assert ,juris-
diction over it based on the Board's current ,juris-
dictional standards
In pertinent part, the petition alleges as follows
1 The Petitioner is a limited partnership that
owns and operates residential apartment buildings
located at 520, 522, 524, 526, and 530 West 123d
Street, as well as other residential apartment build-
ings in New York, New York
2 A representation proceeding (Case No SE-
56694) is. currently pending before the New York
State Labor Relations Board (the SLRB) in which
the Service Employees International Union, Local
32B-32J, AFL-CIO (the Union) is seeking to be
certified as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the Petitioner.'s service and maintenance employ-
ees at its 520, 522, 524, 526, and 530 West 123d
Street locations ,
3 During the preceding year, which period is
representative of its operations generally , the Peti-
tioner had gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and
purchased goods and materials valued in excess of
1213
$50,000 directly from sources located outside the
State of New York
4 The Union has indicated to the Petitioner that
it lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the
aforesaid commerce data , and the SLRB has to
date taken no action with respect to the representa-
tion petition pending before it
5 There is no representation or unfair labor
practice proceeding involving the same dispute
currently pending before the Board
Although all parties were served with a,;-copy of
the petition for advisory opinion, none has filed a
response thereto as permitted by Section 102 101 of
the Board 's Rules and Regulations
On the basis of the foregoing, the Board is of the
opinion that it would assert jurisdiction over the
Petitioner The Board has established a $500,000
discretionary standard for asserting jurisdiction
over residential apartments i As the Petitioner al-
leges that its gross annual revenues exceed that
amount, assuming the Petitioner is a single employ-
er with respect to its several apartment buildings, it
would satisfy the Board 's discretionary standard 2
Further, as the Petitioner's alleged annual out-of-
state purchases are more than de mmimis , it would
also satisfy the Board's statutory standard for as-
serting jurisdiction
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based
on the aforesaid allegations and assumptions, the
Board would assert jurisdiction over the Petitioner
' See Parkveew Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967)
a The Board has traditionally aggregated the gross revenues derived
from all apartment buildings operated by an employer in determining
whether to assert jurisdiction in a labor dispute arising at any one of
them See, e g, R A C Management Co, 264 NLRB 873 (1982), Marlake
Associates, 231 NLRB 335 (1977)
290 NLRB No. 163