Pacific Tent & Awning Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 26, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 640 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
1. All production and maintenance employees of the American
Coating Mills, Division of Owens-Illinois Glass Company at its Chi-
cago, Illinois, plant, excluding truck drivers, office help, and super-
visors within the meaning of the Act.
. 2. All production and maintenance employees, of the Chicago Car-
ton Company, Division of United Biscuit Company of America at
its Chicago, Illinois, plant, including shipping and receiving employ-
ees, but excluding office employees, sales force, salaried employees,
storekeepers, watchmen, steam plant employees, cafeteria employees,
executives, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
3. All factory employees of the Container Corporation of America
plant at 1301 West 35th Street, Chicago, Illinois, including production
and cafeteria employees, window washers, janitors and janitresses,
and excluding all other employees of the maintenance department,
all office and clerical employees, guards, power plant, professional,
and supervisory employees as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act.
4. All employees in the maintenance department of the Container
Corporation of America plant at 1301 West 35th Street, Chicago,
Illinois, excluding the window washers, janitors and janitresses, office
and clerical employees, guards, power plant employees, professional
employees, supervisors, and all other employees.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
EDWARD H. GOODWIN AND GEORGE G. GOODWIN D/B/A PACIFIC TENT &
AWNING. Co. and UPHOLSTERERS ' INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No.
26, PETITIONER . Case No. 20-RC-14P2 . December 26, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Nathan R. Berke,
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
97 NLRB No. 87.
PACIFIC TENT & AWNING Co. 641
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, a California partnership having its principal
office and plant in Fresno , California, is engaged in the business of
manufacturing canvas goods and of wholesaling and retailing canvas
products. During the fiscal year ending February 28, 1951, the Em-
ployer purchased materials valued at $362,472, of which $336,317
represented goods shipped to it directly from points outside the State
of California, and $26,155 represented goods shipped to it indirectly
from outside the State. During the same period , the Employer sold
finished products valued at $11,958, of which goods valued at $2,932
were shipped directly to points outside California, goods valued at
$7,451 were sold to F. M. Speekman Company of California, which
Company annually ships products valued in excess of $25,000 to points
outside California,' and goods valued at $776 and at $799 were sold
to a California public utility and to an interstate motor carrier,
respectively.
The Employer contends that the Board should not assume jurisdic-
tion. More specifically, the Employer alleges that its operations are
purely local in nature, and that the value of such operations in inter-
state commerce is within the "de minimis" rule; that its operations
do not meet any of the Board's minimum standards for the assumption
of jurisdiction; and that even if a minimum standard is met, the Board
should decline jurisdiction on discretionary grounds. We disagree
with the Employer's position.
The value of the Employer's interstate purchases and sales, in our
opinion, precludes characterizing the Employer's operations as either
"purely local in nature" or "de m,inimis." Moreover, contrary to the
Employer's contention, the value of these purchases and sales meets
the requirements of the Board's combined inflow and outflow minimum
standard for the assertion of jurisdiction. The Employer's direct
inflow figure of $336,317 is approximately 67 percent of the mini-
mum direct inflow requirement of $500,000 2 The Employer's indirect
inflow figure of $26,155 is approximately 3 percent of the minimum
indirect inflow requirement of $1,000,000.3 The direct outflow figure
3 The evidence with respect to the value of products shipped out of California by the
Speekman Company was in the form of a letter written by Speekman Company in reply
to a letter inquiry by the hearing officer . The Employer objected to the admission of this
evidence , on the ground that it is hearsay and not the best evidence . Before the hearing,
the hearing deer had advised the Employer by letter that he intended to receive this
letter in evidence and further advised the Employer if it wished to question this information
it should be prepared to do so at the hearing.
As the objection was made solely on evidentiary grounds, without any attempt on the
part of the Employer to contradict or dispute the information contained in the letter, we
find that the hearing officer properly overruled the Employer ' s position . Hearings in
representation canes are essentially investigatory proceedings , and the technical rules of
evidence are not controlling. See Section 102.58, Rules and Regulations , Series 6 ; see
also , Section 5 , Administrative Procedure Act (Public Law 404-79th Congress.)
2 Federal Dairy Co., Inc, 91 NLRB 638
3 Dorn's House of Miracles, Inc., 91 NLRB 632.
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of $2,932 is approximately 12 percent of the minimum direct outflow
requirement of $25,000.4 The Employer's sales figures of $776 and
$799 to a public utility and to a motor carrier, respectively, are in
each instance approximately 2 percent of the minimum requirement
-of $50,000 for sales to such enterprises.; The sales of $7,451 to F. M.
Speeliman Company is approximately 15 percent of the minimum re-
'quirement of $50,000 in the same indirect outflow category.6 The
total of these percentages is in excess of the 100 percent figure neces.
sary to assert jurisdiction under the combined inflow and outflow
standard adopted by the Board.7 Accordingly, we find not only that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
but that this Board should assert jurisdiction herein s
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
-employees 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 parties agree and we find that the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production 'and maintenance employees at^ the Employer's
Fresno, California, plant, including installation employees, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, salesmen, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company , Ltd., 91 NLRB 618.
5 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
6 Ibid.
a The Rutledge Paper Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 625.
Ibid. In addition to commerce figures already recited, it should be noted that the
Employer , during the same fiscal year as used above , sold goods valued at $7,684 to a divi-
sion of Anderson and Clayton Co , an interstate enterprise over which this Board has
asserted jurisdiction in the past ( 8 NLRB 1297).
GREEN BAY DROP FORGE Co. and WALTER LASECBI
LOCAL #186, OF FARM EQUIPMENT AND UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA and WALTER LASECBI . cCa8es Nos.
13-CA9.45 and 13-CB-96. December 27, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Order
On July 23, 1951, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1 in the
above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Union violated
195 NLRB 399.
97 NLRB No. 88.