Mt. Pleasant Public Utilities

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1965

156 N.L.R.B. 79 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

MT. PLEASANT PUBLIC UTILITIES 79
2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local
Union No. 173, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in conduct constituting unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(4), (3), or (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend
that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Mt. Pleasant Public Utilities and Local Union 735, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO. Case No. AO-
91. December 16) 1965
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
ADVISORY OPINION
On November 12, 1965, Mt. Pleasant Public Utilities, herein called
the Employer, filed a petition pursuant to Sections 102.98 and 102.99
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, requesting an Advisory Opinion with respect to the
jurisdictional issue arising in the proceeding filed by the Employer
in the Twentieth District Court of Iowa, Henry County, Iowa, against
Local Union 735, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and against an official of the
Union. The Union had previously filed a petition in Case No. 18-RC-
6604, seeking certification by the Board as the exclusive bargaining
agent of certain employees of the Employer.1 As a result, the
Employer, claiming to be a political subdivision exempt under the
National Labor Relations Act, instituted the aforesaid State court pro-
ceeding to enjoin the Union until the State court had determined the
rights and duties of the parties under Iowa law insofar as they pertain
to the Employer's duty to bargain with the Union. No response, as
provided by the Board's Rules, has been filed by the Union.
The Board has duly considered the allegations of the petition. The
Board's Advisory Opinion proceedings "are designed primarily to
determine questions of jurisdiction by application of the Board's dis-
cretionary standards to the `commerce' operations of an employer." 2
The issue presented herein by the Employer relates to whether it is an
"employer" within the meaning of the Act. As this issue does not
concern questions of the applicability of the Board's discretionary co???,-
' We have been administratively advised that the Regional Director for Region 18 has
approved the Union 's request for permission to withdraw the petition in Case No.
18-RC-6604.
Upper Lakes Shipp ing, Ltd., 138 NLRB 221
156 NLRB No. 15.
SO DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
merce standards, it does not fall within the intendment of the Board's
Advisory Opinion rules .3 For these reasons, we shall dismiss the peti-
tion for Advisory Opinion herein.
[The Board dismissed petition for an Advisory Opinion.]
8 Upper Lakes Shipping, Ltd., supra; Interlake Steamship Company and Pickands
Mather & Co., 138 NLRB 576; Broward County Port Authority, 144 NLRB 1539.
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Michigan , Grand Rapids Divi-
sion 1 and International Union of United Brewery, Flour,
Cereal , Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 7-RC-6948. December 16, 1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Milton Fischer of the National Labor Relations Board. The Hearing
Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. The Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs
which have been considered by the Board in making its decision in this
case.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of single truck distributors who are
engaged in the sale and distribution of the Employer's products.
The Employer contends that these distributors are independent
contractors.'
The Employer in March 1965 acquired the assets of its distributor in
Grand Rapids, Michigan, the Michigan Beverage Company, herein
called Michigan, and entered into individual "Distributor's Agree-
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 An alternative contention of the Employer that these distributors are supervisors
was withdrawn by the Employer.
156 NLRB No. 9.