Tyner-Petrus Co.

In the Matter of G. E. TYNER AND A. PETRUS, PARTNERS, D/B' A TYNER- PETRUS Co., EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, AFL, TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL UNION No. 568, PETITIONER Case No. 15-RC-146.-Decided January 28,19.1 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing of- ficer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. G. E. Tyner and A. Petrus are partners doing business under the name of Tyner-Petrus Co. They conduct a seed processing plant and a retail hardware store in West Monroe, Louisiana. These two opera- tions are kept separate and are, in fact, located physically about 4 blocks apart. A separate bank account and a separate bookkeeping system are maintained for each business; there is no interchange of employees (each group of whom is paid upon a different basis) ; and each operation is delegated to the sole and exclusive supervision of a single partner. For the 6 months' period ending June 30, 1948, the partners pur- chased for their seed processing plant materials in the sum 2 of $375,000, of which amount $100,000 represented the purchase price of goods bought outside the State of Louisiana. During the same period, they sold in this operation goods amounting to $450,000, of ' Subsequent to the hearing , the Employer moved to correct the record to show that pur- chases made by its retail store outside the State of Louisiana during the 6 months ending June 30, 1948 , amounted to "$7,500, approximately ," not "$35 ,000 approximately," as appears in the transcript Since no objections have been filed to the motion, it is hereby granted The transcript is hereby amended to read as corrected. * Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray. 2 The amounts given herein are approximate. 81 N. L. R. B., No. 64. 380 TYNER-PETRUS CO. 381 which $60,000 represented the sales price of goods shipped outside that State. For the 6 months' period ending June 30, 1948, the partners pur- chased for resale in their hardware store merchandise amounting to $90,000, of which $7,500 represented the purchase price of goods bought outside the State of Louisiana and of which $4,000 was paid for goods purchased from the partners' seed processing plant. The partners, conceding that, in connection with their seed proc- essing plant, they were engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, contend nevertheless that the operations of their retail hard- ware store do not so affect commerce and that therefore with respect to this phase of their business, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Board. We find no merit in this contention. We have frequently declined to assert jurisdiction over the operations of retail stores where such business was single and definitely local in character 3 In the instant case, however, the hardware store and the seed processing plant are not only operated in close proximity, but are both, in fact, the common property of the partnership. As the partners clearly constitute a single Employer within the meaning of the Act, and apportion the management of their combined operations between themselves as they see fit, we find that the partners are engaged in commerce with respect to their joint operation in West Monroe, Louisiana, and conclude that the purposes of the Act will be more effectively achieved by asserting jurisdiction over their entire activities.4 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.5 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: (a) All truck drivers, porters, helpers, and seed processers at the Employer's seed processing plant, excluding clerical employees and supervisors ; ' Matter of Frank J Gardner and Aloysius E Whtite, d/ b/a Nola Optical Company, 79 N L R. B., 1241 4 Cf Matter of Edward Taubman, et al., 77 N. L. R. B 846. ' For reasons stated in Matter of F. Strauss and Son, Inc, 80 N. L. It. B. 26, we find no merit in the Employer' s contention that the Petitioner's Monroe branch is not in com- pliance with Section 9 of the Act and that the petition should, therefore, be dismissed. Contrary to the Employer's position respecting its right to examine the Petitioner's cards, it is well settled that a "showing" is purely an administrative prerequisite, which is not subject to inspection by the Employer . Matter of Potosi Tie and Lumber Company, 73 N. L. R B. 590. "382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) All clerks, truck drivers, and porters at the Employer's retail hardware store, excluding the bookkeeper and supervisors. DIRECTION OF ELF., t'IO': S As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining with the Employer, separate elec- tions by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible , but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction , under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard , and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the separate units found appro- priate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work during said pay- roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not .entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by International .Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, AFL, Truck Drivers Local Union No. 568.