Phipps Houses Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1996

320 N.L.R.B. 876 (N.L.R.B. 1996)

876
320 NLRB No. 74
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Phipps Houses Services, Inc., Lambert House Rede-
velopment, Mapes Court, Inc., Lee Goodwin
Residence, Inc. and Sojourner Truth House,
Inc. and Service Employees International
Union, Local 32E, AFL–CIO. Cases AO–332
and AO–333
February 28, 1996
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND COHEN
Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, on January 16, 1996, Phipps Houses Services,
Inc., Lambert House Redevelopment, Mapes Court,
Inc., Lee Goodwin Residence, Inc., and Sojourner
Truth House, Inc. (jointly, the Petitioners) filed two
petitions for an Advisory Opinion as to whether the
Board would assert jurisdiction over them based on the
Board’s current jurisdictional standards. The first peti-
tion seeks an opinion as to Phipps Houses Services,
Inc., the managing agent of various residential apart-
ment buildings and mixed residential and commercial
buildings, and Lambert House Redevelopment, which
appears to be the owner of one such building. The sec-
ond petition requests an opinion as to Phipps Houses
Services and the other three corporations, Mapes
Court, Inc., Lee Goodwin Residence, Inc., and So-
journer Truth House, Inc., which are the apparent own-
ers of three other buildings managed by Phipps Houses
Services. In pertinent part, the petitions and subsequent
briefs filed by the Petitioners allege as follows:
1. A proceeding, Case SE–59040, is currently pend-
ing before the New York State Employment Relations
Board (the NYSERB) in which the Service Employees
International Union, Local 32E, AFL–CIO (the Union)
has filed a representation petition concerning the rep-
resentation of certain employees employed at 1005
East 179th Street (Lambert House). Phipps Houses
Services is the managing agent for Lambert House.
The building service employees working at Lambert
House are employed by Lambert House and are super-
vised and managed by Phipps Houses Services. Lam-
bert House is named as the sole employer of the Lam-
bert House employees in the proceeding before the
NYSERB.
2. A second proceeding, Case No. SE–59036, is also
currently pending before the NYSERB in which the
Union has filed a representation petition concerning
the representation of certain employees employed at
three residential buildings located at 2147 Southern
Boulevard (Mapes Court), 1950 Prospect Avenue (Lee
Goodwin Residence), and 2136 Crotona Parkway (So-
journer Truth House). Phipps Houses Services is the
managing agent for Mapes Court, Lee Goodwin Resi-
dence, and Sojourner Truth House. The building serv-
ice employees working at each of the buildings are
employed by the respective buildings and are super-
vised and managed by Phipps Houses Services. So-
journer Truth House and Phipps Houses Services are
named as the employers of the Mapes Court, Lee
Goodwin Residence, and Sojourner Truth House em-
ployees in the proceeding before the NYSERB.
3. Phipps Houses Services, Inc., a New York cor-
poration with its principal office and place of business
located at 43 West 23d Street, New York, New York,
is engaged in business as the managing agent for var-
ious residential apartment buildings and mixed residen-
tial and commercial buildings located throughout the
New York City Boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx,
and Queens. Phipps Houses Services does not own
these buildings, but only manages them.
4. During the calendar year 1994, Lambert House
collected in excess of $7 million in rent from its ten-
ants, and purchased fuel, cleaning and building mate-
rials, lumber, and other goods valued in excess of
$50,000 from suppliers located within the State of
New York which had received the aforesaid materials
directly from outside the State of New York.
5. During the calendar year 1994, Mapes Court col-
lected in excess of $500,000 in rent from its tenants,
and purchased fuel, cleaning and building materials,
lumber, and other goods valued in excess of $50,000
from suppliers located within the State of New York
which had received the aforesaid materials directly
from outside the State of New York.
6. During the calendar year 1994, Lee Goodwin
Residence collected in excess of $1 million in rent
from its tenants, and purchased fuel, cleaning and
building materials, lumber, and other goods valued in
excess of $50,000 from suppliers located within the
State of New York which had received the aforesaid
materials directly from outside the State of New York.
7. During the calendar year 1994, Sojourner Truth
House collected in excess of $1 million in rent from
its tenants, and purchased fuel, cleaning and building
materials, lumber, and other goods valued in excess of
$50,000 from suppliers located within the State of
New York which had received the aforesaid materials
directly from outside the State of New York.
8. The Union, to the knowledge of the Petitioners,
has neither admitted nor denied the aforesaid com-
merce data set forth above and the NYSERB has not
made any findings with respect thereto.
9. There are no representation or unfair labor prac-
tice proceedings involving the Petitioners pending be-
fore the Board.
All parties were served with copies of the petitions
for an Advisory Opinion, but no response thereto was
filed by the Union.
877PHIPPS HOUSES SERVICES
1 The Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 See Parkview Gardens, 166 NLRB 697 (1967), and Imperial
House Condominium, 279 NLRB 1225 (1986), affd. 831 F.2d 999
(11th Cir. 1987) (establishing $500,000 standard for residential
apartments and for condominiums and cooperatives, respectively).
3 Compare Parkview Gardens and Imperial House Condominium,
supra, with Mistletoe Operating Co., 122 NLRB 1534 (1959) (hold-
ing that jurisdiction will be asserted over commercial office build-
ings when the employer’s gross annual revenue amounts to
$100,000, of which $25,000 is derived from organizations whose op-
erations meet any of the Board’s standards exclusive of the indirect
outflow or indirect inflow standards).
4 See Carol Management Corp., 133 NLRB 1126 (1961), and
cases cited there.
5 See 373–381 South Broadway Associates, 303 NLRB 973 (1991);
135–145 West Kingsbridge Avenue Assoc., 300 NLRB 946 (1990);
and Mandel Management Corp., 248 NLRB 186 (1980).
6 See, e.g., 373–381 South Broadway Associates, supra, and cases
cited there.
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 petitioned-for unit under Sec. 9(c) of the Act.
See generally Sec. 101.40 of the Board’s Rules.
Having duly considered the matter,1 the Board finds
that it would assert jurisdiction over Petitioners Mapes
Court, Lee Goodwin Residence, and Sojourner Truth
House. The Board has previously established $500,000
in gross annual rental income as the discretionary juris-
dictional standard for residential buildings.2 Here, as
the petition alleges that the annual rental incomes from
the residential buildings owned by Mapes Court, Lee
Goodwin Residence, and Sojourner Truth House re-
spectively exceed $500,000, the aforesaid Petitioners
clearly satisfy this standard. Further, as the petition
also alleges that Mapes Court, Lee Goodwin Residence
and Sojourner Truth House respectively purchase fuel,
cleaning and building supplies, lumber, and other
goods valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers lo-
cated within the State of New York who had received
the aforesaid materials directly from outside the State
of New York, the aforesaid Petitioners also satisfy our
statutory jurisdictional standards.
The Board also finds that it would assert jurisdiction
over Petitioner Lambert House. It is unclear, based on
the petition and subsequent brief, as to whether Lam-
bert House is a commercial, residential, or diversified
property. The Board has established different standards
for residential and commercial buildings.3 Further,
where the property owned by a petitioner is mixed res-
idential and commercial, the Board has historically
analyzed one or the other portions of the petitioner’s
operation to determine whether they separately meet
the relevant jurisdictional standard.4 However, notwith-
standing this general rule, the Board has recognized an
exception where the gross annual revenues from the
petitioner’s operation exceed $1 million—the highest
discretionary jurisdictional monetary standard the
Board applies to any enterprise.5 Here, as the petition
alleges that the combined annual rental income from
all the residential and commercial properties owned by
Lambert House exceeds $7 million, the Lambert House
clearly satisfies this standard. As the petition also al-
leges that Lambert House purchased fuel, cleaning and
building supplies, lumber, and other goods valued in
excess of $50,000 from suppliers located within the
State of New York who had received the aforesaid ma-
terials directly from outside the State of New York,
Lambert House clearly satisfies our statutory jurisdic-
tional standards.
Finally, the Board finds that it would also assert ju-
risdiction over Petitioner Phipps Houses Services. The
petitions allege that Phipps Houses Services is the
managing agent of the Mapes Court, Lee Goodwin
Residence, Sojourner Truth House, and Lambert De-
velopment buildings. As indicated, the aforesaid rental
properties meet the discretionary and statutory jurisdic-
tional requirements mandated by the Board. Histori-
cally, the Board has asserted jurisdiction over the man-
aging agent where the underlying buildings meet the
necessary jurisdictional requirements.6 Here, as Phipps
Houses Services is the managing agent for the Mapes
Court, Lee Goodwin Residence, Sojourner Truth
House, and Lambert House buildings, all of which
meet our jurisdictional standards, we find that Phipps
Houses Services satisfies the Board’s jurisdictional
standards.
Accordingly, the parties are advised that the Board
would assert jurisdiction over Petitioners Mapes Court,
Lee Goodwin Residence, Sojourner Truth House, Lam-
bert House, and Phipps Houses Services.7