Johnnie W. Miller Sandwich Co.

JOHNNIE W . MILLER SANDWICH CO. 463 JOHNNIE W. MILLER SANDWICH Co. and CHAUFFEURS, SALESDRIVERS & HELPERS UNION, LOCAL No. 572, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN , & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 21-RC-1864. July 23, 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 George H. O'Brien, 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, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The business of the Employer : 2 The Employer, a California corporation, is engaged in baking pies, preparing sandwiches, and distributing these products, along with cakes and doughnuts which it purchases already prepared, in the San Diego and Long Beach, California, areas. It maintains a separate plant for these purposes in each area. During the fiscal year ended February 28, 1951, the Employer's total purchases amounted to $443,219, all of which were made locally .3 During the same period, its sales totaled $678,244.02, of which $70,- 477.48 represented sales of sandwiches and baked goods to post ex- changes located on United States military reservations, and to ships service stores on United States Navy vessels and installations' The -post exchanges and ships service stores are operated and controlled by the Armed Forces, rather than private concessionaires, with the profits being allocated to recreation funds for the service personnel. The Employer supplies the sandwiches and baked goods requirements of the ships service stores on Navy vessels under a written contract with the Navy's purchasing officer at Los Angeles. The needs of the post exchanges are handled under blanket. written orders from the post exchange representatives. The Employer is paid for these products by Government checks. 1 At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds. For the reasons stated in section 1 , infra, the motion is denied. 2 The names of the Employer and the Petitioner appears. in the caption as amended at the hearing. ' While the record shows that meats used by the Employer were received from local branches of interstate concerns , there is no evidence as to the amount of these or other purchases which originated outside the State. ' Of the balance of the sales, approximately $ 13,000 represented sales to boats operating between Santa Catalina Island and the California mainland and the remainder represented sales to local stores and vendors. 95 NLRB No. 61. 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we are of the. opinion, contrary to the Employer's contention, that its operations are sufficiently identified with the national defense effort to warrant the. assertion of jurisdiction in this case.5 2. The labor organization involved claims to, represent certain employees 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 appropriate unit : We find, substantially in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that all truck drivers at the Employer's Long Beach, California, plant, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] ' See Harvey Stoller, d/b/a Richland Laundry tf Dry Cleaners, 93 NLRB 680. Cf. Westport Moving and Storage Company , 91 NLRB 902 ; Memphis Cold Storage Warehouse Company, 91 NLRB 1404. THE ECLIPSE LU1 BER COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORK- ERS of AMERICA, LOCAL 2-101, CIO and CHARLES B. MARL. Cases Nos. 19-CA-328 and 19--CB-118. July 24,1951 Decision and- Order On February 14, 1951, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued his intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that. the Respondent Union had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent Company had not engaged in any unfair labor practice and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with re- spect to the Company. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- 1 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 Murdock]. 95 NLRB No. 59.