Northcross Machine Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 565 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

NORTHCROSS MACHINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 565
N ORTHCROSS MACHINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY" and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, TALBOT LODGE No. 61,
PETITIONER. Case No. 3t-RC-R98. May 16, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, hearings were held before Charles A. Kyle and Anthony
J. Sabella, hearing officers. The hearing officers' rulings made at the
hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Herzog and Members Reynolds and Houston].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
Northcross Machine Manufacturing Company, the Employer, is a
partnership enterprise owned by Leon M. Northcross and Wilson J.
Northcross , brothers . It is engaged in general machine shop work in
and about Memphis, Tennessee , where it maintains its sole place of
business . With a total complement of five nonsupervisory employees,
it takes small orders for the repair and rebuilding of miscellaneous
machines. During the calendar year 1950 , the Employer purchased
materials and supplies valued at $6,942, of which $895 was paid for
shipments originating outside the State of Tennessee . During the
same period , its total sales amounted to $43,268, of which all but ap-
proximately 4 percent were made locally.
The Employer contends that the operations of the Northeross Ma-
chine Manufacturing Company do not affect interstate commerce, or
at best not sufficiently to justify the Board 's assertion of jurisdiction
in this proceeding , and that therefore the petition should be dismissed.
Without deciding whether the business of the Northcross Machine
Manufacturing Company affects commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act, we find, in accordance with the Board's
recently enunciated jurisdictional policy, that it would not effectuate
the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this case
on the basis of the operations of that company alone.2
The Petitioner maintains that the Employer's operations must be
viewed together with two other business enterprises also owned in
partnership by the Northcross brothers. These are the Northcross
Mantel & Grate Company and the Northcross Tile & Marble Company,
doing business in the city of Memphis at another location . The first
of these companies sells flooring material and lighting fixtures at
wholesale and retail ; the second does a contracting business installing
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Dayson Bedding Co., 91 NLRB 643 ; The Stanislaus Implement and Hardware
Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618.
94 NLRB No. 84.
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BO2Rll
such materials, and obtains part of its supplies from the Mantel & Grate
Company. Apart from the fact that the Northcross brothers own all
three companies, the only relationship among them is that the office
and administrative work for all three is conducted at a single location,
adjacent to the shop of the Employer. In all other respects, the Em-
ployer's operations are entirely disassociated from those of the other
companies.
During the calendar year 1950, Northcross Mantel & Grate Company
purchased raw material valued at $7,568, of which $5,910 was received
from outside the State. During the same period, its sales, all made
within the State, totaled $55,000, some to individuals and some to
commercial accounts. Although Leon M. Northcross testified that
some of the materials were sold for eventual use outside the State, the
records of this company do not reveal which of its numerous customers
do business across State lines, or what portion of its sales was made
to customers who came to its retail store from outside the State of
Tennessee.
In 1950, Nortlicross Tile & Marble Company purchased materials
valued at $66,030, of which $39,250 was received from outside the
State. During the same period, its installation contracts totaled
$117,840; $82,000 was received for work done for general contractors
on buildings in the Memphis area, and the rest for work on local
private residences. The only indication that any portion of this
company's output might fall into an indirect outflow category, for
purposes of testing the Board's jurisdiction, is the fact that some work
was performed for such companies as Standard Oil and certain banks.
At best the amounts received from these customers did not exceed
$10,000.
The foregoing facts relative to the nature and extent of the oper-
ations of the three companies owned by the Northcross brothers are
all that could be gathered in two separate hearings devoted almost
exclusively to investigation of the jurisdictional facts. In these cir-
cumstances, we deem it unnecessary to decide whether jurisdiction
should be based upon the operations of all three companies, for, as-
suming the correctness of the Petitioner's contention in this respect,
even the aggregate operations of all three fall short of the require-
ments recently established by the Board for such miscellaneous oper-
ations.3 Accordingly, we find that whether the business of the North-
cross Machine Manufacturing Company be viewed alone, or whether
it be considered together with the operations of Nortlicross Mantel &
Grate Company and Northcross Tile & Marble Company, it would not
effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction
in this case. We shall therefore dismiss the petition.
2 The Rutledge Paper Products , Inc, 91 NLRB 625.
CHRIS-CRAFT CORPORATION
Order
567
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
CHRIS-CRAFT CORPORATION and LODGE No. 1757, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACIIINISTS, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1188.
May 16, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act; a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of 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 composed generally of all nonsuper-
visory production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Cadillac, Michigan, plant. The Employer, Local 2392 of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, hereinafter
called the Carpenters, .and Local 1484 of the Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL, hereinafter called
the Painters, contend that the unit sought is inappropriate and that,
in effect, representation should be on a craft basis. In this connection,
the Carpenters would establish a separate unit of all woodworking
1 At the beginning of the hearing, the hearing officer, over the Employer's objection,
granted the Petitioner's motion to amend the unit description by including firemen-
watchmen in the requested unit. As the Employer fully presented its position with regard
to the unit issue raised by the amendment and has not demonstrated any prejudice, the
hearing officer's ruling is hereby affirmed. Memphis Cold Storage Warehouse Company,
91 NLRB 1404.
The Employer moved to dismiss the petition, in substance, on the grounds that (1)
the Petitioner's showing of interest is inadequate, and (2) the unit sought is inappropriate.
As to (1), the Petitioner's showing is a matter for administrative determination and is
not litigable by the parties. Indiana Oxygen Company, 93 NLRB No. 130. As to (2),
for the reasons indicated in paragraph numbered 4, infra, this contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the Employer's motion is hereby denied.
94 NLRB No. 82.