Capitol Laundry and Dry Cleaners

In the Matter Of JOSEPH S. NORTH, D/B/A CAPITOL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS, EMPLOYER, and DRY CLEANING AND LAUNDRY :WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 304, •AFL, AND LAUNDRY, LINEN AND DRY CLEAN- ING DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL No. 905, AFL, PETITIONERS Case No. 30-RC-33,0.-Decided October 13, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clyde F. • Waers,. hearing officer. 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 2. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion 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: The Employer is engaged in the laundry and dry cleaning business at Denver, Colorado. During the year 1949, the Employer's purchases of supplies, including soaps and chemicals, amounted to $31,338.70. All purchases were made within the State of Colorado. Supplies valued at $1,327.06, purchased in Colorado, were shipped directly to the Employer from out of the State. A substantial part of all sup- plies, while purchased in Colorado, are manufactured in other States. All equipment, purchased locally and used by the Employer, is manu- factured outside the State of Colorado 3 During the same period, the Employer's income from sales and services,- totaled $355,090.89. Of this amount, approximately $117,000 3 At the hearing the petition and other formal papers were amended to show the correct name of the Employer. ' The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Board does not have jurisdiction . For the reasons stated herein, this motion is hereby granted. ' The Employer did not make any purchases of equipment during the year 1949. 91 NLRB No . 153. 923 924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' was received from various types 'of business establishments. The balance came from private laundry and dry cleaning customers. The Employer does not provide towels or uniforms to its customers. Of the $117,000 in sales to business establishments, the distribution was as follows Sales direct and indirect to interstate carriers---------------------- $5,542.00 Sales to establishments having interstate characteristics------------ • 14, 938.00 Sales to hotels, restaurants , agency cleaning shops, bath houses, a commercial printing firm, a convalescent home, a hospital and an undertaker----------------------------------------------------- 96,520.00 We do not agree with the Employer's contention that it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. However, as neither the value of materials coming from, out-of-State sources nor of that sold to interstate firms over' whom the Board would assert jurisdiction meets the requirements of our assertion of jurisdiction in accordance with our recently announced policy,4 we find that it will not. effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. S Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635; Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638; Dorn's House of Miracles, Inc., 91 NLRB 632; The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625.