Pacific Woodcraft

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1713 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

PACIFIC WOODCRAFT 1713
4. Respondent did not discriminate against Earlene Rochester, nor did it
fail or refuse to reinstate said Earlene Rochester to her former position in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
HOWARD W . SAVELAND AND THELMA B. SAVELAND , COPARTNERS, DOING
BUSINESS AS PACIFIC WOODCRAFT and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS
OF AMERICA , LOCAL 576 , CIO. Case No. 21-CA-720. June 08,
1951
Decision and Order. Dismissing Complaint
On June 1, 1951, Trial Examiner Robert L. Piper issued an Order
(a copy of which is attached hereto) granting the Respondents'
motion to dismiss the complaint in the above-entitled proceeding, on
the ground that the assertion of jurisdiction would not effectuate the
policies of the Act because the Respondents' operations fail to satisfy
the Board's minimum requirements. Thereafter, Furniture Work-
ers, Upholsterers and Wood Workers Union, Local 576, Independent,
alleged successor to the charging union, filed a "Motion for Review of
Order. Dismissing Complaint," in which it does not dispute the Trial
Examiner's commerce findings but urges nevertheless that the Board
should assert jurisdiction.
To the extent here material, the Board 1 has reviewed the rulings
made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no preju-
dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Order issued by the Trial Examiner, the
motion for review of that Order, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint issued herein against the
Respondents, Howard W. Saveland and Thelma B. Saveland, co-
partners doing business as Pacific Woodcraft, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
Order
Charges having been duly filed in the above -captioned case, and a complaint
and notice of hearing having been issued on June 26 , 1950. by the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region ;
1 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, Reynolds.
and Styles].
94 NLRB No. 242.
953841-52-vol. 94-109
1714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An answer having been filed by the Respondents ;
A hearing having been held in Los Angeles, California, on August 8 and 9,
1950, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, and evidence having been received
on all issues raised in the pleadings ;
A motion having been made at the close of the hearing by the Respondents
for dismissal of the complaint, and ruling upon said motion having been r-
served;
Briefs having thereafter been received ;
An order having been issued January 24, 1951, by the undersigned granting
the motion to dismiss the complaint, after consideration of the briefs and the
entire record, because the assertion of jurisdiction would not effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act ;
The Board, upon the General Counsel's request for review of the order dis-
missing the complaint and upon the motion of Furniture Workers, Upholsterers
and Woodworkers Union, Local 576, Independent, as alleged successor to the
charging party, for a review of said order and remand to take further testimony
upon the commerce issue, having issued a corrected order on April 3, 1951, direct-
ing the reopening of the record and remanding the case to the undersigned for
further hearing with respect to the dollar volume of the Respondent's pur-
chases and sales from August 1 to December 31, 1950, and the identity and con-
tinued existence of the charging union or the identity of any successor thereto ;
A further hearing having been held in Los Angeles, California, on April ' 0,
May 2 and 3, 1951, before the undersigned, and evidence having been received
upon the above issues as directed by the corrected order of the Board ;
A motion having been made at the close of the remanded hearing by the Re-
spondents for dismissal of the complaint, and ruling upon said motion having
been reserved ; and
A summary of the evidence adduced at both hearings as to the business of the
Respondents being as follows :
Howard W. Saveland and Thelma B. Saveland are copartners doing business
as Pacific Woodcraft at Los Angeles, California, where they are engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of redwood yard furniture and allied redwood
products.
During the year 1950, Respondents purchased $3,503.56 worth of supplies out-
side the State of California, sold $8,891.12 worth of products 'outside the State
of California, and sold $27,379.89 worth of products in California to Montgomery
Ward & Co., a company engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
As stated in my previous order dismissing the complaint, the Board has set
forth certain alternative minimum requirements which as a matter of policy
must be met in order for the Board to determine that it would effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction. Among these criteria are out-of-State
sales, out-of-State purchases, intrastate sales to companies which are engaged in
interstate commerce, and combined percentages of such sales and purchases
which, although each is less than the specified minimum, equal or exceed 100
percent when totaled. Under this policy, the Board has determined that the
minimum amount for out-of-State sales is $25,000,' for direct out-of-State put-
cases is $500,000,2 and for intrastate sales to companies engaged in interstate
commerce is $50,000 3 It is of course only necessary to meet any one of these
standards. None of the amounts listed above equals the minimum established
1 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Co., Ltd., 91 NLRB 618.
2 Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638.
1 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
TRI-PAK MACHINERY SERVICE, INC. 1715
by the Board in the respective category. There remains for consideration a
determination whether the combined percentages of the minimum amounts equal
or exceed 100 percent, which the Board has found to be sufficient for the assertion
of jurisdiction.'
During 1950, Respondent's out-of-State purchases totaled $3,503.56 or 0.7 per-
cent of $500,000. Their out-of-State sales totaled $8,891.12 or 35.56 percent of
$25,000. Their sales to Montgomery Ward & Co. totaled $27,379.89 or 54.76 per-
cent of $50,000. The combined total of percentages is 91.02 percent, or less than
100 percent.
Now, THEREFORE, the undersigned, being fully advised in the premises, is of
the opinion that the operations of the Respondent are essentially local in char-
acter, and although it does not appear that they are wholly unrelated to com-
merce, the assertion of jurisdiction in the instant case would not effectuate the
policies of the Act ;
Said motion urging dismissal upon jurisdictional grounds is hereby granted ;
and it is hereby
ORDERED, that said complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Any party may obtain a review of the foregoing order, pursuant to Section
102.27 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, by filing a request therefor with
the Board, stating the grounds for review, and immediately on such filing serve a,
copy thereof on the Regional Director and the other parties. Unless such request
for review is filed within 10 days from the date of the order of dismissal, the case
shall be closed.
4 The Rutledge Paper Products Co., 91 NLRB 625.
TRI-PAS MACHINERY SERVICE, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION.
OF' MACHINISTS . Case No. 39-CA-149. June 28, 1951
Decision and Order
On March 29, 1951, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner. We, too, believe that Staiger was a
supervisor within the meaning of the amended Act.
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relation Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel.
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Stylesl.
94 NLRB No. 244.