Anziano Building Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 17, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 494 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Anziano Building Company , Inc., and United Tele-
phone Answering ' and Communication Service
Union, Local 780, AFL-CIO. Case AO-174
November 17, 1975
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On September 23, 1975, Anziano Building Compa-
ny, Inc., hereafter Petitioner, filed with the Board a
petition for 'an Advisory Opinion pursuant to
Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended,` for a determina-
tion whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over
its operations. On October 14, 1975, Petitioner filed a
brief in support of its petition and the New York
State , Labor Relations Board, hereafter, the State
Board, filed a statement.
In pertinent part, Petitioner's brief and the State
Board's statement allege:
1. There is pending before the State Board a
proceeding docketed as Case SU-47763, wherein the
United Telephone Answering and Communication
Service Union, Local 780, AFL-CIO, hereafter Local
780, has charged that Petitioner has refused to
bargain with it, although Locale 780 claims' to
represent 'a' unit of Petitioner's telephone operator
employees.
2. Petitioner is a corporation licensed to do
business -in the State of New York, where it is
engaged exclusively in the ownership, management,
and operation of the Garden City Medical Center, an
office building, where it leases office space-to some
56 business-and professional enterprises. During the
calendar year 1974, Petitioner received gross reve-
nues in excess of $350,000, and alleges that it expects
to receive in excess of $500,000-in gross revenues in
calendar year 1975 from the operations of the office
building.
3. During calendar year 1974, Petitioner received
in excess of $21,000 in rent and other payments from
its tenant, Center for Laboratory Medicine, and
currently receives in excess of $27,000 per, annum
therefrom. Petitioner alleges, upon information and
belief, that ' the Center 'for Laboratory Medicine
operates clinical and medical testing laboratories in
New York and. New, Jersey, where it, performs
clinical testing services for customers in 46 States. Its
gross annual revenue is in excess of $4 million, of
which approximately $2 million is received from
customers outside the State of New Jersey where it
maintains its principal place of business. The Board
recently asserted jurisdiction over the Center for
Laboratory Medicine in -Case 22-RC-6378 on the
basis of its operations in,coinmerce.
4. During- calendar 1974,- Petitioner also received
in excess of $7,500 in rents and other payments from
its tenant, The House of Vision, Inc., and currently
receives in excess of $13,500 per annum therefrom.
Petitioner alleges upon information and belief that
The House of Vision, Inc., with its.principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois, is, engaged, in the
manufacture and retail sale of corrective lenses and
related products, and has a gross annual revenue in
excess of $18 million from the operation of approxi-
mately 150 retail establishments and 12 manufactur-
ing plants in at least 12 different, States.
. 5. No, party to the State Board proceeding has
admitted or denied the commerce data alleged
herein, and the State Board has made no findings
with respect thereto.
6. No proceeding involving the labor dispute
before the State Board is pending before the
National Labor Relations Board.
7. Although notified -of the instant proceeding,
Local 780 has not filed a response to the petition.
8. On October 14, 1975, the State Board, by its
general counsel, filed a statement in which it alleges a
brief summary of the history of relations and
litigation between Petitioner and Local 780 before
the State Board. It asserts that the central issue is not
whether the Petitioner' currently falls under the
Board's jurisdiction, but rather whether it did so at
the time the alleged unfair labor practice charges,
subject of the State- Board proceeding; were filed in
June 23, 1973, and April 4, 1974. The State Board
therefore requests an Advisory Opinion specifically
as to whether the, Stater Board should continue to
process the charges before it.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Board is of the
opinion that:
1. Petitioner is a corporation engaged exclusively
in the business of ownership, management, and
operation of the Garden City Medical Center, an
office building.
2. The Board has asserted jurisdiction over
employers engaged in ownership and management of
office buildings where they receive annual gross
revenues of $100,000 or more, of which at least
$25,000 is derived from enterprises whose operations
meet any of the Board's jurisdictional standards
other than its indirect nonretail standards.'
3. In the instant case, Petitioner had an annual
gross income in excess of $350,000 in calendar year
1974, and thereby satisfies the first criteria for the
Board's assertion of jurisdiction.
1 Mistletoe Operating Company, 122 NLRB 1534 (1959).
221 NLRB No. 106
ANZIANO BUILDING CO., INC.
4. With regard to the second criteria, Petitioner
received $21,000 from the Center for Laboratory
Medicine in calendar year 1974, whose operations
satisfy the Board's retail standard and/or the direct
inflow/outflow nonretail standard2 on the basis of its
annual revenue in excess of $4 million and its more
than $2 million direct receipts from outside New
Jersey. In addition, Petitioner received $7,500 from
The House of Vision, Inc., in calendar year 1974,
where an annual gross revenue in excess of $18
million from sales by its retail branch establishments
in several States meets the Board's retail standard.
The combined annual income in excess of $25,000
received by Petitioner from both the Center for
Laboratory Medicine and The House of Vision, Inc.,
enterprises, which meet other than the Board's
indirect nonretail standards, thus satisfies the second
criteria of the Board's jurisdictional standard for
office buildings.
2 In Carolina Supplies and Cement Co, 122 NLRB 88 (1958), the Board
established the jurisdictional standard for retail enterprises as those which
fell within its statutory jurisdiction and which had a gross annual volume of
business of at least $500,000 In Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81
(1958), the Board's nonretail - standard requires , inter a&a, annual direct
495
We do not reach or pass on the contention of the
State Board with respect to its jurisdiction over the
Petitioner when the unfair labor practice charges
were filed nor its request for advice as to whether it
should continue to process the proceedings before it,
as an Advisory Opinion proceeding is primarily for
the purpose of determining whether an employer's
operations in commerce meet the Board's discretion-
ary standards for asserting jurisdiction .3 Questions
involving the merits of the alleged unfair labor
practices or whether the subject matter of the dispute
is governed by our Act are substantive matters not
resolvable in this proceeding.4
Accordingly, the parties are advised pursuant to
Section 102.23 of the Board' s Rules and Regulations
that, on the basis of the allegations herein presented,
the Board would assert jurisdiction over the opera-
tions of the Petitioner with respect to labor disputes
cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.
inflow and/or outflow of at least $50,000.
3 Yale-New Haven Hospital 214 NLRB No 34 ( 1974), and cases cited in
fn. 4 thereof
4 Sec 101 40(e) of the Board's Statements of Procedure , Series 8, as
amended.