Redfern Sausage Co.

fi DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD electricians. However, the Employer does not now employ any in- dividuals in such classification and has no definite plans for employing them. We shall, therefore, in accordance with the Board's usual policy, make no decision as to the unit placement of such categories.15 Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that the electricians may constitute a separate appropriate unit. They may also appropriately be represented in the production and maintenance unit with the Em- ployer's other employees. We shall therefore direct an election in a voting group composed of all the maintenance electricians at the Em- ployer's Apco, Ohio, plant. If a majority of the maintenance elec- tricians vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described above, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appro- priate for the purpose of collective bargaining. In the event a major- ity vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing production and maintenance unit to be appropriate, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 15 Cities Service Refining Corporation,' 94 NLRB 840 , footnote 2; Saco Lowell Shops, 89 NLRB 598 , 600, footnote 6; The Schaible Company, 88 NLRB 733, 734 , footnote 3. REDFERN SAUSAGE COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1626. February 6, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., 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 imm this case, the Board finds : The Employer is a Georgia corporation with its principal office and place of business at Atlanta, Georgia. It is engaged in the process- ing and sale of sausage meat and related products. During a 12-month period ending June 30, 1951, the Employer's total purchases amounted to about $627,000 in value. Of this amount, $167,000 represents pur- chases directly from out of States. Of the balance of the purchases 98 NLRB No. 6. HUDSON HOSIERY COMPANY 7 apparently not more than $260,000 represents goods purchased locally but originating out of State. During this same period the Employer made sales totaling about $820,000, all to purchasers within the State of Georgia. Approximately 95 percent of these sales were to retail stores, the remaining 5 percent being to local jobbers who sell only to independent retail establishments within a 25-mile radius of Atlanta, Georgia. Over $400,000 worth of sales were made to retail outlets in Georgia of the A & P Tea Company, Colonial Stores, the Kroger Company, and other multistate chains. However, the record does not demonstrate that any of these retail stores sell goods out of the State of Georgia in the amount of $25,000 annually. On the basis of the above facts and on the record as a whole, we find that the operations of the Employer do not meet any of the applicable standards set up by the Board to determine the assertion of jurisdiction? Accordingly, we find that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case, and we will dismiss the petition herein. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. ' Cf. Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Ltd ., 91 NLRB 618 ; Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635 ; Federal Dairy Co., Inc ., 91 NLRB 638 ; Dorn's House of Miracles, Inc., 91 NLRB 632 ; and The Rutledge Paper Products Co., 91 NLRB 625. HUDSON HOSIERY COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, A. F. OF L. Case No. 34-R'C 28:9. February 6, 195,2 Supplemental Decision and Order On August 14, 1951, pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election 1 an election was held under the direction of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region among certain employees of Hudson Hosiery Company, herein called the Employer, at its Monroe Street plant in Charlotte, North Carolina. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties which showed that of approximately 900 eligible voters, 839 cast valid ballots, of which 267 were for and 572 against the Petitioner, and 18 ballots were challenged.2 On August 20, 1951, the Petitioner filed objections to the election with the Regional Director. On January 7, 1952, the Regional Direc- tor, after investigating the Petitioner's objections, issued his report 195 NLRB 250. 2 As the challenges were insufficient to affect the results of the election , the Regional Director made no investigation or report thereon. 98 NLRB No. 7.