Lebanon Laundry and Dry Cleaners

In the Matter of LEBANON LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 843, A. F. L., PETITIONER Case No. 17-RC-267.Decided January 31,1919 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer 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 : THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer, an individually owned laundry and dry cleaning establishment, operates its only plant at Lebanon, Missouri. During 1947, the Employer had operating expenses of approxi- mately $55,000, of which approximately $1,000 represented supplies and equipment shipped to it from outside the State. The balance of the Employer's purchases, and its payments for services and labor, were all made within the State. The record does not reflect how much, if any, of the Employer's purchases made within the State represented products which originated outside the State. During 1947, the Employer received income from services in the approximate amount of $52,000, all of which was received from cus- tomers who resided in Missouri. The Employer services no customers engaged in interstate commerce. The Employer asserts that it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Although we do not necessarily agree with the Employer's contention, we believe that, in view of the relatively small *Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray. 81 N. L. R. B., No. 69. 405 06 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD out-of-State purchases and the absence of any out-of-State customers, or customers engaged in interstate commerce, it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.