American Republics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 870 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Because of the limited scope of the Respondent 's refusal to bargain , and because
of the absence of any indication that danger of other unfair labor practices is to
be anticipated from the Respondent 's conduct in the past, we shall not order the
Respondent to cease and desist from the commission of any other unfair labor
practices.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Shopmen 's Local No . 729, International Association of Bridge , Structural and
Ornamental Ironworkers of America , A. F. L., is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Truitt Manufacturing Co. is engaged in interstate commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees , including checkers , truckdrivers
and leadermen exclusive of Respondents employed at their Greensboro plant, ex-
clusive of office clerical employees , guards, and supervisory employees , constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. Shopmen 's Local No . 729, International Association of Bridge , Structural and
Ornamental Ironworkers of America , A. F. L., was on October 27, 1950, and at
all times thereafter has been , the exclusive representative of all the employees of
such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on July 27, 1953 , and at all times thereafter , to bargain collec-
tively with Shopmen 's Local No. 729, International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Ironworkers of America, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative
of its employees in the appropriate unit , the Respondents have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By the above conduct which interferes with , restrains , and coerces its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
AMERICAN REPUBLICS CORPORATION, PETROLEUM BUILDING DEPART-
MENT and STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION No. 707, I. U. OF
0. E., AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 39-RC-758. November 15,195 4
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John F. Burst, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case,' the Board finds :
American Republics Corporation, the Employer herein, is a Dela-
ware corporation, engaged in the production of petroleum and related
On May 12, 1954, the Petitioner filed with the Board its request for permission to
withdraw its petition . The Employer, on May 14, 1954, objected to the Petitioner's re-
quest In view of our disposition of this case, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon this
request.
110 NLRB No. 141.
AMERICAN REPUBLICS CORPORATION 871
products in the States of Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Arkansas,
and in the sale of these products to various major oil pipeline and gas
companies in several States. Accordingly, we find that the Employer
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.' This pro-
ceeding involves only the Petroleum Building Department in Houston,
Texas, a 21-story office building which the Employer owns and oper-
ates. All of its tenants, including Houston Natural Gas Corporation
and Houston Oil Company of Texas,3 are local enterprises whose
operations are confined for the most part to intrastate activity. Seven
of the floors, approximating 26 percent of the total office space, are
utilized by the Employer as a home office for its various multistate
operations.
Until recently the Board has normally asserted jurisdiction over the
owner of an office building where such building is essential to the op-
eration of the employer's multistate activities, and, as such, comprises
an integral part of its multistate enterprise.4 However, the Board
recently reexamined its jurisdictional policy in this regard,5 deciding
that henceforth it will confine its assertion of jurisdiction, over office
buildings to those structures where the particular "employer which
owns or leases and which operates the office building is itself otherwise
engaged in interstate commerce and also utilizes the building pri-
marily to house its own office."
In the instant case, as only 26 percent of the total office space is uti-
lized by the Employer in connection with its multistate operations,
an amount deemed insufficient to meet the new jurisdictional require-
ments, we find that the office building is not owned and operated pri-
marily for the use of the Employer's own offices. Accordingly, we find
that it will not effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
over the Employer in this case," and that no question affecting com-
merce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2 See American Republics Corporation, 78 NLRB 1025; footnote 1, wherein the Board
asserted jurisdiction over part of the Employer's Texas operations
8 The record discloses that: although Houston Natural Gas Corporation had consider-
able inflow , it had no out-of-State sales during the past year ; although Houston Oil Com-
pany of Texas is a large interstate enterprise , its Texas operations normally have no direct
out-of-State sales.
' See The Title Guarantee Company, 97 NLRB 1497, and cases cited therein.
5 McKinney Avenue Realty Company, 110 NLRB 547.
9 Although Members Murdock and Peterson do not agree with the Board's revised juris-
dictional policy regarding office buildings for reasons noted in their separate dissents in
McKinney Avenue Realty Company, supra, they feel that they are bound by the majority.