Staten Island Cleaners, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 396 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
resurfacing jobs does not, of course, furnish an adequate basis to warrant the•
assertion of jurisdiction.' Cf. Makins Sand & Gravel Co., and Brewer and Brewer
Sons, supra.
Insofar as the construction projects are concerned, only slight effect can be
presumed on the interstate operations of the secondary employers. Thus, no
evidence was offered of the size of either project nor of the actual interstate
derivation of any of the materials used therein. It is, indeed, only by indulging
a questionable presumption that the jobs can be said to have had any extra-
state incidences e And even with the presumption indulged, the evidence does
not permit a calculable finding of an effect on the contractors' interstate
operations.
Under the circumstances, it is concluded and found that the operations of the.
employers at which were directed the alleged unfair labor practices in this pro-
ceeding were essentially local in character, and that, though they are not wholly
unrelated to commerce, it would not effectuate the policies of the Act for the
Board to assert jurisdiction.
For these reasons, Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint upon juris-
dictional grounds is granted, and it is hereby :
ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Any party may obtain a review of the foregoing order, pursuant to Section.
203.27 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board, by filing a request therefor witho
the Board, stating the grounds for review, and immediately upon such filing
serving a copy thereof on the Regional Director and the other parties. Unless
such request for review is filed within ten (10) days from the date of this order
of dismissal, the case shall be closed.
" The inference is justified that Pearl City's sale of $30,000 to a Buffalo contractor in:
1949 was an unusual and sporadic part of its business, since Scalise testified that there-
was "very little" road building done by the Jamestown contractors (who were Pearl City's
regular customers).
6 The entire record suggests the probability that the stipulated figures of Carlson's
interstate purchases (75 .percent of $100,000) were erroneous. The percentage is obviously
disproportionate for a small general contractor, who would ordinarily buy the bulk of his
materials locally (cf. the 25 percent in Scalise's case). It is considered possible that
the stipulated figures included Carlson's purchases of materials at Erie for use in the.
Erie projects.
STATEN ISLAND CLEANERS, INC., PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL.
ASSOCIATION OF CLEANING AND DYE HOUSE WORKERS, A. F. L. and
LAUNDRY, LINEN CLEANING AND DYE HOUSE CHAUFFEURS, LOCAL.
366, AFFILIATED WITH INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS,WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L. Cases:
Nos. 14-RM-42 and 14-RM-43. February 26, 1951
Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Milton O. Talent,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
93 NLRB No. 63.
STATEN ISLAND CLEANERS, INC. '397
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 question affecting commerce :
The Unions contend that the Employer is not engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act. We find no merit in this contention.
The Employer operates a dry cleaning plant in St. Louis, Missouri,
where it cleans all the garments received at its retail outlets, four of
which are'located at Scott Air Base, Illinois,; five in St. Louis, Mis-
souri ; and one in Clayton, Missouri. The Employer performs work
under contracts with the Post Exchange and the Purchasing and
Contracting Office, War Department, at Scott Air Base, Illinois, which
work, in the past fiscal year, was valued at approximately $73,000.
Under these circumstances, we find that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it would effectuate
the purposes of the Act to assert our jurisdiction herein.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
In Case No. 14-RM-42, the request for recognition by the Employer,
on which the petition therein is based, was made in a letter signed
by the representative of International Association of Cleaning and
Dye House Workers, A. F. L., on printed letterhead stationery of its
Local 161. At the hearing, the International representative stated
that he was unable to answer whether or not Local 161 would admin-
ister any contract that might result from negotiations should the
International be certified. Since the hearing, the Board has been
administratively advised that, should the International win the elec-
tion, the employees involved, depending upon the location of their
work, would be included in either Local 161 or Local 46. Neither
of these locals is or ever has been in compliance with Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h) of the Act. Under these circumstances, the Board finds
that the request for recognition was made by the International on
behalf of a noncomplying local.2 The Board will not process a peti-
tion where the question of representation is raised by a request for
recognition by a noncomplying union' It follows that when the
question is raised by a request by a complying union on behalf of a
noncomplying local, the Board will not process the petition. Accord-
ingly, the Employer's petition in Case No. 14-RM-42 will be dismissed.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represent-
ation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
' Stanislaas Implement and Hardware Company , Lam,ted, 91 NLRB 618
2 Lane Wells Company, 77 NLRB 1051.
'Herman Loewenstein , Inc, 75 NLRB 375.
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The appropriate unit:
The parties in Case No . 14-RM-43 stipulated and we-find that all
truck drivers employed by the Employer at its establishments at St.
Louis and Clayton, Missouri , and Scott Air Base, Illinois, excluding
all other employees , clerical and office employees , guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined by the Act constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of the Employer in Case No,..
14 -RM-42 be; and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted .from publication in this.
volume.]
KOHLER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AIITOMOBILE,.
AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
UAW-CIO; PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-1516. February 26r
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 Herman J. DeKoven,,
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-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, 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. Kohler Workers Association, herein called the Intervenor, con-
tends that an existing contract between it and the Employer is a bar
to this proceeding. The present contract was executed on August
31, 1950. The prior contract, executed on October 5, 1948, expired on
December 31, 1949. There was no written collective bargaining
agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor between Decem-
ber 31, 1949, and August 31, 1950. 1 The Petitioner made its request
1 The Employer and the Intervenor were in the process of negotiating the present contract
during that interval.
93 NLRB No 69.