King Brooks, Inc.

In the Matter of KING BROOKS, INC.,, EMPLOYER and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,, PETITIONER Case No. 7-RC-532.-Decided June 28, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, ,a hearing was held before Francis E. Burger, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. For the reasons stated below, the motion is hereby denied. The hear- ing 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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The business of the Employer : The Employer, a Michigan corporation, operates a men's retail clothing and furnishings store in Detroit, Michigan. It annually pur- chases merchandise valued at approximately $420,000, of which about 90 percent is obtained outside the State of Michigan. It annually sells merchandise valued at approximately $700,000, all of which is sold locally. We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that it is en- gaged in commerce ,within-the meaning of the Act. In view of the large volume of the Employer's business, we also believe that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.,, 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. I Matter of P. B. Magrane Store, Ina., 84 N. L. R. B. 3455 ; Matter of Parka-Belk Company of Elizabethton, 77 N. L. R. B. 429. 84 N. L. R. B., No. 74. 652 KING BROOKS, INC. 653 3. The alleged question concerning representation : No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons : On March 18, 1949, pursuant to an agreement between the Petitioner and the Employer, the Michigan State Labor Mediation Board con- ducted an election by secret ballot to determine whether or not the employees in the unit alleged herein to be appropriate desired to be represented by the Petitioner for collective bargaining purposes. Of 21 eligible voters who participated in the election, 18 voted against, and 3 voted 'for, the Petitioner. Three weeks after it had lost the State- conducted election, the Petitioner filed the present petition with this Board. As evidence of its representation the Petitioner submitted designations signed by approximately half of the employees in the appropriate unit. All these designations were dated before March 18, 1949, the date of the State-conducted election. In view of the outcome of that recent election, the evidence of representation sub mitted by the Petitioner appears to be of dubious value. We therefore question whether there is sufficient likelihood that a statutory bargain- ing representative would be selected at this time to warrant expending Board resources to conduct an election.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Matter of Consolidated Steamship Company, 75 N L. R. B 1254. 853396-50-vol 84-41