Oregon Labor-Management Relations Board

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 1207 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

OREGON LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS BOARD 1207
It is further recommended that unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt
of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order the Respondents shall notify
said Regional Director , in writing, that they will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations , the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respond-
ents to take the aforesaid action.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF ASSOCIATED MARITIME WORKERS, LOCAL No. 3,
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS , MATES AND PILOTS , INC., AFL-
CIO, AND LOCAL 28, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND
PILOTS, INC., AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, we hereby give notice that:
WE WILL NOT coerce or restrain the employees of Ingram Barge Company by
acts of physical violence for continuing to work for Ingram Barge Company
because of a strike against it by Local No. 3, by throwing stones and rocks,
shooting marbles or any other missiles, by threats of violence to and physical
assaults on Ingram supervisors and property where such conduct directed
against supervisors and property is committed either in the presence of Ingram's
employees or under such circumstances as to insure they will learn of it.
WE WILL NOT by like or related conduct restrain or coerce the employees of
Ingram Barge Company in the exercise by them of the right to self-organization,
to form , join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing ,, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or
to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
ASSOCIATED MARITIME WORKERS, LOCAL No. 3, INTER-
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS , MATES AND
PILOTS, INC., AFL-CIO; LOCAL 28, INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS , MATES AND PILOTS, INC.,
AFL-CIO; THEIR AGENT HARRY RUTAN,
Organizations.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Title of Officer)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Oregon Labor -Management Relations Board and Charles Lake
Construction Co., a sole proprietorship , owned by Charles
Lake and Eugene Building Trades Council and Carpenters
Local 1273 . Case No. A0-32. April 19, 1962
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed by the Oregon Labor-Management Relations
Board, herein called State Board, for an advisory opinion in con-
formity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series S. Thereafter, on March 12, 1962, the State Board
filed a supplemental petition setting forth additional information and
attaching thereto letters from the parties' attorneys.
136 NLRB No. 114.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In pertinent part, the petition and supplemental petition allege :
1. There is presently pending before the State Board a representa-
tion proceeding (Case No. 8-61) involving Charles Lake Construc-
tion Co. of Eugene, Oregon, herein called the Employer, and the
Eugene Building Trades Council and Carpenters Local 1273 of
Eugene, Oregon, herein called the Union, which claims to represent
the Employer's carpenters, the only employees the Employer has.
The petition had been filed in September 1961 on behalf of the Em-
ployer by Cascade Employers Association, herein called Cascade.
2. At the hearing, the Union took the position that this Board
rather than the State Board had jurisdiction over the Employer. The
Union asserted that the Employer's health and welfare contributions
to Cascade, a multiemployer association of which he was a member,
constituted engaging in collective bargaining on an associationwide
basis and, therefore, the interstate commerce of all association mem-
bers should be considered in determining the jurisdictional issue.
Further, the Union felt that the Employer's inflow of materials to
the Employer from outside the State for the present year would meet
the Board's $50,000 nonretail jurisdictional standard.
3. Although the State Board has not as yet made any formal find-
ings, the State Board alleges that the evidence adduced at the hear-
ing in the representation proceeding before it shows that the Em-
ployer is engaged in the business of constructing residential housing
entirely within Lane County, Oregon, and that his gross purchases,
other costs of operations, and gross sales in preceding years were as
follows :
Cost of materials Gross sales
1958 ---------------------------- $20,798.43 $98,944.12
1959 ---------------------------- 37,321.38 161,631.12
1960 ---------------------------- 38,642.33 164,930.53
1961 (Approximately ) ------------ 40,000.00 164,000.00
Average cost of labor per year-approximately $27,000.00.
Estimate of subcontract costs per year-approximately $70,000.00.
4. While the aforementioned figures do not indicate the extent, if
any, of the direct or indirect inflow of materials to the Employer from
outside the State, the Union claims that there was testimony, in the
hearing before the State Board, indicating that the Employer's inflow
would approximate $40,000 annually. The Union also "feels" that
testimony relating to the Employer's apartment house project-a
project which started in August 1961 but had not progressed beyond
the foundation stages due to picketing beginning in September 1961-
would show that the Employer' s inflow for 1961 exceeded $50,000.
However, the State Board excluded such testimony and the Union
offered no specific figures to support its position. To the State Board,
the Union's position is merely that the apartment house project "might
possibly be anticipated to push the inflow of materials for the present
year over the $50,000 mark."
OREGON LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS BOARD 1209
5. Cascade is an employer association of approximately 200 mem-
bers engaged in various trades, including 15 to 20 members who are
contractors, one of whom is the Employer. Cascade has authority
generally to bargain collectively on wages, hours, and working con-
ditions for its members. However, although the Employer is a mem-
ber of Cascade and pays health and welfare contributions to Cascade,
he has never "joined with or by a party to any type of multiple-em-
ployer bargaining," and "has never been a party to multiple-unit
collective bargaining between members of [Cascade] and labor organi-
zations." Further, he "has never been a party to a multiple-employer
contract" and "has never agreed to be bound in advance by a contract
negotiated by Cascade Employers Association." Finally, he "has
never bargained individually with an individual union" and "has
never signed a contract with a union of carpenters."
6. No responses have been filed by the Employer, Cascade, or the
Union, except for the letters from the attorneys of the Employer and
the Union, attached to the supplemental petition herein. Such letters
have been fully evaluated in rendering the advisory opinion herein.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that:
1. The Employer is engaged in the construction of residential hous-
ing in Lane County, Oregon.
2. In the absence of any specific standard for homebuilding opera-
tions, the Board is applying the existing jurisdictional standards to
such operations. Atlas Roofing Co., Inc., 131 NLRB 1267, footnote 7.
The current Board standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over re-
tail enterprises within its statutory jurisdiction is an annual gross
volume of business of at least $500,000, Carolina Supplies and Cement
Co., 122 NLRB 88, 89; while the current nonretail standard requires
an annual minimum of $50,000 out-of-State inflow or outflow, direct
or indirect. Sie7nons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85. Further,
only members of multiemployer associations who participate in or are
bound by multiemployer bargaining negotiations are considered single
employers for jurisdictional purposes. Siemens Mailing Service,
supra, at p. 84.
3. During the preceding years 1958 through 1961, the Employer's
gross annual sales of homes were less than $500,000 and therefore did
not meet the gross volume of business test for assertion of jurisdiction
over retail enterprises. Further, the Employer's annual inflow of
materials was less than $50,000 and did not meet the inflow test for
assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises. Finally, although
1 Our determination herein is based only upon the facts submitted in the petitions. As
indicated above, the testimony relating to the Employer ' s apartment house project had
been excluded at the hearing by a ruling of the State Board , although the Union "feels"
that such testimony would increase the employer ' s inflow to more than $ 50,000. How-
ever , the Union did not set forth any specific inflow figures relating to that project, so
that the extent , if any , of the project ' s inflow is indefinite and speculative Under these
circumstances , this Board is unable to conclude that the project , which has not proceeded
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer is a member of Cascade and makes health and welfare
contributions to it, he has never participated in, or has been bound
by, multiemployer bargaining negotiations, nor has he unequivocally
indicated an intent to do so. In fact, the Employer has never bar-
gained individually with any union nor signed a collective-bargaining
contract covering his carpenters, the employees involved in the repre-
sentation proceedings before the State Board. Under these circum-
stances, as the Employer has not had bargaining relations with any
union and as he has not participated in collective bargaining on a
multiemployer basis nor unequivocally indicated an intent so to be
bound, he cannot be considered with the other Cascade members as
a single employer for jurisdictional purposes, but rather must be con-
sidered separately, on his own. Siemons Mailing Service, supra;
Earl Gordon, d/b/a Gordon Electric Company, 123 NLRB 862; cf.
Miami Marble & Tile Company, 132 NLRB 844. Therefore, in deter-
mining not to assert jurisdiction herein, the Board has taken into con-
sideration only the jurisdictional facts pertaining to the Employer
alone and not the interstate commerce data of the other Cascade
members.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, that, on the facts submitted,
because the commerce operations of the Employer do not meet the
Board's standards for asserting jurisdiction over retail or nonretail
enterprises and because the Employer and Cascade are not considered
to be a single employer for jurisdictional purposes, the Board would
not assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with respect to
disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, or 10 of the Act.
beyond the foundation stages, would have increased the Employer 's annual inflow to
more than $50,000.
Salyer Stay Ready Filter Corp . and Lodge 850, International
Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO . Case No. 16-CA-1493.
April 19, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 9, 1962, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued
his Intermediate 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 Intermediate Report attached here-
to. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed a brief
in support of the Intermediate Report.
136 NLRB No. 116.