Coles-Moultrie Electric Cooperative

30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD COLES-MOULTRIE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE I and INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 702, A. F. L., Petitioner. Case No. 14 -RC-2205. November 10, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Walter A. Werner, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 2 Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: The Employer is a nonprofit Illinois cooperative engaged in the distribution of electric power to its approximately 4,400 members, all of whom are located within the State of Illinois. It is financed by the Rural Electrification Administration. The Employer does not generate any electricity, but purchases all its requirements, valued at approximately $106,000 annually, from the Central Illinois Public Service Corporation. During the year 1952, the Employer purchased materials and supplies valued at about $47,000, of which about $25,000 worth was shipped to the Employer from points outside the State. During the same period, it sold electricity valued at approximately $403,000 to its members, 97 percent of whom were local farm users. The Employer concedes that about $2,700 worth of its sales were made to commercial users engaged in interstate commerce. The Employer contends that it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that, in any event, it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction here- in. While we do not find that the Employer' s operations are wholly unrelated to commerce, we believe that, in view of their essentially intrastate character and the Employer's almost exclusive dealing with members who are local rural consumers, those operations do not have a sufficient impact upon inter- state commerce to justify our taking jurisdiction over the Em- ployer.3 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition on the ground that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. [The Board dismissed the petition.] Member Murdock dissenting: I dissent from the majority' s refusal to assert jurisdiction over this public utility in accordance with the Board ' s juris- IThe name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the question of the admissibility of certain exhibits offered by the Petitioner. As the data contained therein, even if assumed to be true, would not alter our decision in this case, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the admissibility of those exhibits. 3Inter-County Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation, 106 NLRB 1316. 107 NLRB No. 18. MEDWAY SHOE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 31 dictional plan and numerous similar cases issued pursuant thereto. See my dissent in Inter-County Rural Electric Coop- erative Corporation, 106 NLRB 1316. MEDWAY SHOE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and MARY BENNETT, Petitioner and UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO.' Case No. 1-RD-147. November 10, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert S. Fuchs, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 2 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Union contends that the decertification petition should be dismissed as premature. In 1949, the Board certified the Union as bargaining repre- sentative of a production and maintenance unit at the Employer's Medway, Massachusetts, plant. Thereafter the Employer and the Union entered into collective-bargaining agreements, the last of which expired on March 17, 1953. Two weeks before that date, the plant ceased operations at the insistence of a creditors' committee. Since then the Employer has been making efforts to work out an arrangement to obtain enough new capi- tal to resume business . Up to the time of the hearing which was held on July 20, 1953, it was unsuccessful in these endeavors. Whether it will ever succeed in securing additional financial backing is uncertain. 1The petition named Local 30, United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, as the union to be decertified, and the notice of hearing likewise named the Local as the union in interest. Local 30 and its parent Union contend that the proceeding cannot be maintained because the most recent contract named the Union, not Local 30, as the bargaining representative. However, the Union, which is the certified representative, appeared at the hearing, was granted permission to intervene, and participated fully. Under these circumstances, we perceive no prejudice to the Union arising from the designation of Local 30 in the petition and the notice of hearing. We hereby amend the official caption of the case by striking therefrom the reference to Local 30. 2 The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union is no longer the bargaining representative of the employees in the agreed appropriate unit. 107 NLRB No. 25.