Corrigan Properties, Inc.

In the Matter of CORRIGAN PROPERTIES, INC., EMPLOYER 1 and BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 292, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 16-RC-430.-Decided November 29, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before James P. Wolf, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground, among others, that it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. For reasons stated below, the motion is hereby granted. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 2 finds: The business of the Employer The Employer, a Texas corporation, operates a number of retail properties including the Tower Petroleum Building, a general office building in Dallas, Texas. Only the employees of this building are involved in this case. The building contains approximately 81,334 square feet of rentable space. The Employer services the stairways; halls, lobby, and elevators of the building, but does not handle the delivery of freight, packages, or mail to the tenants. The Employer buys all its maintenance supplies locally. The Employer's building houses approximately 78 firms, of which about 36 are branch offices of national concerns. The latter com- panies-including life insurance companies, manufacturers of cash registers, glass, metal products, and soap-maintain executive, sales or service offices in the Employer's building. None of them performs any production'work in the building. 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 87 NLRB No. 12. 252 CORRIGAN PROPERTIES, INC. 253 In addition to this office building, the Employer owns various apart- ments located in Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston; a retail store block located in Houston, a hotel located in Mineral Wells, and controlling interest in a Dallas hotel. All the income of the corporation, totalling $234,376.51 for the period February 28 to June 30, 1949, is derived from the rental of these properties within the State of Texas. All pur- chases of maintenance and repair supplies for the use in the properties are made locally or through local agents. Upon these facts, we conclude that the Employer's operation of a general office building is essentially local in character.3 Without de- ciding whether the Employer's operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act, we find that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case 4 Accordingly, Nye will dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 3 See 10 East 40th Street Building, Inc. v. Callus, 325 U. S. 578. 4 Midland Building Company, 78 NLRB 1243; Central Tower, Inc., 84 NLRB 357. Cf. Tri-State Casualty Insurance Company, 83 NLRB 828, where the Employer, in addition to operating a general office building , conducted from that building an interstate insurance business.