Brick & Tile Co.

PRICE DUNHAM FENET BRICK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 15 PRICE DUNHAM FENET BRICK MANUFAG"TURING COMPANY, INC., D/B/A BRICK & TILE COMPANY and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, +PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-469. April X5,1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Richard C. Keenan, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of brick at its plant in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The Employer also sells, but does not produce, other building materials such as cement, sand, gravel, expansion joints, and wall tiles. During the past year, the Employer purchased raw materials, equipment, and supplies in the amount of $174,986. Of this amount $95,810 represented equipment and supplies secured directly'from sources outside the State of Louisi- ana, and $11,968 represented supplies which originated outside the State. During the same period the Employer's sales amounted to $349,256, all of which were made within the State, except one out- of-State shipment valued at $190.05. Local sales of approximately $20,000 were made to public utilities and transit systems and to firms who ship more than $25,000 out of the State.' An examination of the Employer's out-of-State purchases, its sales directly, out of the State, its sales to local firms which operate public utility or transit systems, or which in turn ship more than $25,000 out of the State, reveals that the amounts involved are less, either alone or in combination, than the minimum required under the Board's announced policy.' Nor do we find that the fact that the Employer's president personally owns stock in several out-of-State enterprises in itself constitutes the Employer an integral part of a multistate enter- prise.4 Accordingly, we find that it will not 'effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case, and we shall dismiss the petition. ' I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The record indicates only that these firms are engaged in interstate commerce. Even assuming that these firms ship more than $25,000 outside the State , the result would be the same. 'Federal Dairy Co., Inc, 91 NLRB 638; Statinless Implement and Hardware Co, Lspwted, 91 NLRB 618 ; Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635; The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625. ° Cf The Borden Company, Southern Division, 91 NLRB 628. 94 NLRB No. 16. 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. GEORG JENSEN, INC., AND FREDERIK LUNNING, INC. and LOCAL 721, RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, CIO, ALSO KNOWN AS RETAIL MENSWEAR, SPORTING GOODS AND AcoESORIES EMPLOYEES UNION, ij(CAL 721, AFFILIATED WITH RETAIL, WHOLE- SALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION' k b , PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-3164. April 25,1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Thomas A. Ricci, 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.' 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A 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.' 4. The Employer, with 216 employees, is engaged in importing and selling, at wholesale and retail, silverware, china, and household fur- nishings at its New York City department store and warehouse. I The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to reflect the name of the Petitioner. 2 Georg Jensen , Inc., and Frederik Lunning , Inc., engaged in a common enterprise, with mutual officer and a common labor policy, constitute a joint employer, within the meaning of the Act. Launderepair Company, 90 NLRB 778. 8 The Employer contends that the instant petition should be dismissed , because the Petitioner has allegedly failed to comply with Section 9 ( f) of the Act. In support of its contention , the Employer urges that, notwithstanding the Board 's established policy holding that compliance is not subject to collateral attack, an exception should be made in the instant case where , it alleges , the record on its face shows noncompliance. We find no merit in this contention . Whatever may be the import of the testimony to which the Employer refers, it does not affect our administrative determination that the Petitioner is in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act. The Employer's request for leave to file a supplemental statement relative to the other Issues in this case is denied. 94 NLRB No. 10.