Z. F. Management, Agent

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1990

299 N.L.R.B. 332 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

332 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sha Realty, a Limited Partnership, Juda Wolf, Gen-
eral Partner, Owner and 189 Ross Associates, a
Limited Partnership, Juda Wolf, General Part-
ner, Owner and Has Realty, a Limited Partner-
ship, Juda Wolf, General Partner, Owner,
Samuel Kestenbaum d/b/a Z. F. Management,
Agent and Local 32B-32J, Service Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case A0-277
July 31, 1990
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND OVIATT
On June 12, 1990, the Petitioner, Local 32B-32J,
Service Employees International Union, AFL-
CIO, filed a petition for an advisory opinion with
the Board, pursuant to Sections 102 98(a) and
102 99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, seek-
ing to determine whether the Board would assert
jurisdiction over the above-named Employers
The petition, in pertinent part, alleges as follows
1 There are currently pending before the New
York State Labor Relations Board (the SLRB)
three separate petitions—Case Nos SEE-57331,
SEE-57332, SEE-57333-filed by the Employers
seeking an election among three unit employees
employed at the Employers' residential facilities to
determine whether a majority of the employees
wish to be represented for collective-bargaining
purposes by the Petitioner 1
2 The Employers each own a residential apart-
ment facility located in Brooklyn, New York
3 The Employers are joint employers who re-
ceive gross annual revenues in excess of $500,000,
and purchase goods and materials, such as heating
oil and electricity, valued in excess of $50,000,
from firms located within the State of New York
which, in turn, purchase said goods and materials
from outside the State of New York The SLRB
has made no findings with respect to the above-
commerce data
'Prior to flung their petitions with the SLRB, the Employers had filed
a charge with the Regional Director for Region 29 (Case 29-CB-7279)
alleging that the Union was unlawfully refusing to bargain concerning
the employees employed at its residential facilities The Regional Direc-
tor however, declined to Issue a complaint, relying on the ground ad-
vanced by the Union, that the Employers' employees at the apartment
facilities constituted separate bargaining units, each containing only one
employee, and that It was against Board policy to hold elections in
single-person units
4 The Employers apparently admit the above
commerce data, however, because they previously
filed an unfair labor practice charge against the
Union in Case 29-CB-7279 which alleged, inter
aim, that they were engaged in interstate com-
merce
5 There is no representation or unfair labor
practice proceeding involving the same labor dis-
pute pending before this Board
On June 25, 1990, the Employers, through their
managing agent, Z F Management, filed a state-
ment of position opposing the petition The Em-
ployers contend that the Board should decline to
issue an advisory opinion because the Petitioner
had an opportunity to raise the jurisdictional issue
at the State Board hearing on their petitions but
failed to do so
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the
opinion that
As noted, following the filing of the Employers'
petitions with the State Board, a hearing was held
in which the Petitioner fully participated At no
time during the heanng did the Petitioner question
the jurisdiction of the SLRB Further, we have
been administratively advised by the SLRB that
the elections were held on June 22, 1990 General-
ly, the Board accords the same effect to the results
of a state-board election as it does to its own elec-
tions 2 Thus, in light of the elections held among
the Employers' employees in the above-mentioned
SLRB proceedings, it is clear that the Board would
not, at this time, entertain a representation petition
for an election among the same employees 3 For
this reason, and as the Petitioner did not raise the
jurisdictional question at any time during the State
Board hearing, we find that no useful purpose
would be served by issuing an advisory opinion on
the issue of the Board's commerce jurisdiction over
the Employers' residential apartment facilities 4
Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for an
Advisory Opinion is dismissed
'See We Transport, 198 NLRB 949 (1972), Elmsford Transportation,
213 NLRB 257 (1974)
'As noted, the Union sought dismissal of Case 29-CH-7279 on the
grounds that the three units involved only one employee each There is
no contention that these circumstances have changed Nonetheless, as is
our practice in Advisory Opinion proceedings, we do not express any
view concerning the appropriateness under our Act of the bargaining
units petitioned for by the Employers in the State Board proceedings
*Compare, Elmsford Transportation, supra See also Roman Catholic
Archdiocese of Newark, 204 NLRB 159 (1973)
299 NLRB No 41