Motor Replacement Co.

In the Matter of H. L. BONIFACE, D/B/A MOTOR REPLACEMENT COM- PANY,' EMPLOYER and DISTRICT LODGE No. 49 OF THE INTERNATIONAL. ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER Case No. 21-RC-448.-Decided April 1, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER 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. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds : The Employer maintains his place of business at 500 West Jefferson Street, Phoenix, Arizona, where lie is engaged in the rebuilding and sale of automobile motors. The materials used in the Employer's, operations consist principally of pistons, piston rings, valves, guides, valve springs, bearings, automotive motor blocks, and various abra- sives. Although most of such materials, together with about $600 to $800 worth of annual replacements of small tools, are purchased from local jobbers and wholesalers, all materials and tools are manufactured outside the State of Arizona.2 No heavy equipment or machine tools were purchased within the past year. During the year ending July 30, 1948, the Employer purchased ma- terials, equipment and supplies, including small tools, in the amount of $45,898.62 of which amount about 5 percent in value was purchased directly from sources outside the State of Arizona. During the same period, the Employer's sales of finished motor products amounted to. approximately $138,372.19, substantially all of which were made and delivered to purchasers located within the State of Arizona. The Petitioner contends that the operations of the Employer affect commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the Board should I The name appears as amended at the hearing 2 Such materials as motor blocks and pistons are secured principally from sources in Los Angeles, California Valve guides and springs are manufactured at Corry, Pennsyl- vania, and piston rings are manufactured at Hagerstown , Pennsylvania. 82 N. L. R. B., No. 77. 690 MOTOR REPLACEMENT COMPANY 691 therefore assert jurisdiction in this case. In our opinion, however, the operations of the Employer are essentially local in character and in- substantial in their effect upon commerce. It is true that in other cases,3 which appear at first glance to involve comparable activities on the part of employers, we have found the employers therein to be engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. But as ex- plained in Matter of Philip N. Koritzky, d/b/a Bangor Auto Body Shop, Case No. 1-RC-793, issued this day (82 N. L. R. B. 688), those cases are readily distinguishable. In those cases, the basis for distinction was the fact that the employers' operations were integrated with those of manufacturers or suppliers who were engaged in com- merce on a Nation-wide scale and whose products were used by the employers in their business under the terms of an exclusive agency or franchise agreement with such manufacturers or suppliers. In the absence of a comparable showing in the instant case, we do not believe it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of H. L. Boniface, d/b/a Motor Replacement Company, Phoenix, Arizona, filed herein by District Lodge No. 49 of the Inter- national Association of Machinists be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 8 Matter of M. L. Townsend, 81 N. L. R . B. 739; Matter of Earl McMillian Company, 81 N L R B 639.