Valley Concrete Co.

In the Matter of ARTHUR B. WOODS, LEwis A. WOODS, AND GEORGE LINDAHL, CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS VALLEY CONCRETE COM- PANY,1 EMPLOYER AND PETITIONER and GENERAL TEAMSTERS, CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL No. 324, AFL, UNION Case No. 36-RM 44.Decided February 7,1950 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Robert E. `Tillman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2 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 Houston and Murdock.] Upon the entire record in this case,3 the Board finds : The Employer is a partnership engaged at Independence, Oregon, in the business of dredging, processing, and selling sand and gravel, purchasing and selling cement, and mixing and selling redi-mix con- ,crete. During the year ending September 1, 1949, the Employer pur- chased cement valued at approximately $35,875. Of this sum, cement valued at approximately $3,158 was purchased from suppliers located outside the State of Oregon ; the balance was purchased from a manu- facturer located within Oregon. The other raw materials used by the Employer consisted of sand and gravel, which it dredged from a ' The name of the Employer is corrected pursuant to evidence adduced at the hearing. 2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Union ' s motion made orally at the hear- ing, to dismiss the petition. For the reasons stated hereinafter, this motion is hereby :granted. Contrary to the contention of the Employer, a motion may be made orally on the record at the hearing. Sec. 203.57, National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- lations. s After the bearing, the Union filed a motion to strike a brief of the Employer, on the ground that it contained statements of fact not supported by the record , As each party is entitled , under the Board's Rules and Regulations , to file a timely brief commenting on the evidence and setting forth its position , we shall deny this motion. Our decision in this case is not, however, in any wise predicated upon consideration of factual material presented for the first time in the Employer 's brief, but solely upon evidence introduced into the record at the hearing. General Steel Tank Company, 81 NLRB 1345. 88 NLRB No. 116. 519 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD river within the State. During this same period, the Employer pur- chased locally materials for plant repair and maintenance, such as cables, belting, shafts, and screen cloth, valued at approximately $10,964, materials for truck repair and maintenance valued at approxi- mately $6,318, and gasoline and oil valued at approximately $9,826.. All of the gasoline and oil and materials for truck repair and mainte- nance, and an unspecified portion of the materials for plant mainte- nance and repair, were produced or manufactured outside the State.. The Employer also purchased, during this same period, capital equipment valued at approximately $57,000. Equipment valued at approximately $11,148 was purchased from a supplier located outside the State of Oregon; the remaining equipment was purchased from suppliers located within Oregon. With the exception of a scoopmo- bile, valued at approximately $4,515, all of the equipment purchased within Oregon was manufactured outside the State. All of the Employer's sales during this period, valued at approxi- mately $164,306, were made locally. Of these sales, products valued at approximately $2,970 were sold for U. S. highway maintenance. and repair,4 $10,145 for repair and maintenance of the roadbed of an interstate railroad, $45,719 for the construction of bridges and for the repair and maintenance of State and county roads, $5,891 for the construction of a local reservoir, $16,451 to four lumber companies: for the construction and maintenance of buildings and logging roads,5 and $653 to an agency of the United States Government for the con- struction of a building. The Employer's remaining sales, approxi- mately 50 percent of the dollar value of its total sales, were made to farmers, home owners, and similar local purchasers. The Union asserts that the operations of the Employer do not affect commerce, within the meaning of the Act. Although we do^ not find that the Employer's operations are wholly unrelated to com- merce, we believe that they are essentially local in nature, and that the assertion of jurisdiction in this case would not effectuate the policies of the Act.6 We shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 4 Strong Company, 86 NLRB 687, is distinguishable on the facts from the instant case. In the Strong case, the Employer was itself directly engaged in constructing, maintaining, and repairing U. S. highways. 5 In excess of 80 percent of the sales of these companies, valued in excess of $6,000,000, is made to customers located outside the State of Oregon. 6 Standard Concrete Pipe Company, 88 NLRB 163; Makins Sand & Gravel Co., Inc., 85 *NLRB 213.