Upshur Rural Electric Cooperative Corp.

UPSHUR RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION 207 No proof was adduced by the General Counsel that the Union during 1952 or at any time for that matter applied moneys as alleged in the complaint ii and thereafter requested the Company to discharge employees for delinquency in dues The proviso of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act states: ... This subsection shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein. Under the terms of the proviso the Unionhas the right to fine its members for not attending union meetings and to go so far as to suspend them from membership for nonpayment of fines However, threatening employees with the loss of their employment if they fail or re- fuse to pay the fines where they continue to pay or tender the periodic dues is proscribed by the Act See Namm's Inc , 102 NLRB 466. Standing alone the "Warning" to employees that no further dues would be accepted if they failed to pay fines or in lieu thereof present valid official meeting excuses is not a threat of loss of employment. Here, however, the "Warning" was followed by a letter, such as the one sent to Ward on November 30, 1952 When the documents are read together it is re- vealed that if an employee fails to pay fines, no further dues will be accepted from him thus resulting in a delinquency in dues, automatic suspension from union membership, and .. obliged to leave the job." Clearly, this spells out a threat of loss of employment Other than the Union's letter to Ward, dated November 30, 1951, the General Counsel did not adduce evidence that after that date the Union sent a similar letter either to Ward, or to any other employee. That date however, being more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge herein, the alleged unfair labor practice of violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) is barred by Section 10 (b) of the Act and I so find. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The operations of the Company, Bloomingdale's constitute and affect trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2 Distributive, Processing and Office Workers of America, Local 3, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3 The Company has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and the Union has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (b) (2) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] "It is noted that Ward never left any money with the Union in October and November 1951 or early January 1952. UPSHUR RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 324, AFL. Case No. 16-CA- 503. November 25, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 324, AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, through the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort 107 NLRB No. 60. 2 08 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Worth , Texas ), issued a complaint dated February 18, 1953, against Upshur Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation, herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act . Copies of the charge and complaint , together with the notice of hearing, were duly served upon the parties . The Respondent duly filed its answer to the complaint wherein it denied the commission of any unfair labor practices and affirmatively challenged the jurisdiction of the Board over its operations. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Longview , Texas, on April 6 and 7 , 1953 , before Reeves R. Hilton , the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. All parties were offered full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues . At the hearing , the Respondent moved for a dismissal of the complaint , which motion was denied by the Trial Examiner . During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. On June 15, 1953 , Trial Examiner Hilton issued his Inter- mediate Report herein , finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative remedial action . He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint , and recommended dismissal of those allegations . Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. To the extent here material , the Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing , and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent ' s exceptions thereto and supporting brief, and the entire record in the case, and is of the opinion that the assertion of jurisdiction over the Respondent ' s operations is not warranted. The Respondent, whose principal place of business is located at Gilmer , Texas, is a nonprofit electric cooperative , chartered by the State of Texas and financed by the Rural Electrification Administration . It is engaged in the distribution of electric power to approximately 8,000 members, all of whom reside within the State of Texas. The Respondent does not generate any electricity, but purchases all its power, valued at approximately $54,900 annually , from Southwestern Gas and Electric Company at connecting points within the State . During 1951 and 1952, the Respondent also purchased miscellaneous supplies in an unspecified amount, most of which was received from suppliers MACK MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 209 within the State, including General Electric, Westinghouse Electric, and Graybar Companies. During this same period, all the Respondent's sales, valued in excess of $125,000 during 1951, were made to its members, most of whom are local rural consumers. While the Board has heretofore asserted jurisdiction over the Respondent on the basis of commerce facts then before it,1 we believe, upon consideration of the above-mentioned facts and the entire record herein, that the Respondent's operations are essentially local in character and that, while not entirely unrelated thereto, they do not have a sufficient impact upon interstate commerce to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction. 2 Accordingly, we find that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in the instant proceeding, and we shall therefore dismiss the complaint in its entirety. 3 [The Board dismissed the complaint.] 1Case No. 16-RC-810. (Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.) 2 Inter- County Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation. 106 NLRB 1316; Coles- Moultrie Electric Cooperative, 107 NLRB No. 18. 3Member Murdock disagrees with the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds for the reasons stated in his dissent in the Inter-County Rural Electric Cooperative case but, considering himself bound by the majority decision therein, has signed this opinion. MACK MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION, UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMERICA MACK MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and AMALGAM- ATED PLANT GUARDS, LOCAL 504, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED PLANT GUARD WORK- ERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner . Cases Nos . 4-CA-854 and 4-RC-1665.1 November 25, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On August 10, 1953, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his Intermediate Report in the complaint proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 1In the representation case, involving the same categories of employees concerned in the complaint case, a Decision and Direction of Election issued on October 17, 1952 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions ) and a certification on November 6, 1952. The repre- sentation case was incorporated by reference in the complaint proceeding . It is herewith further consolidated for purposes of supplemental decision and order. 107 NLRB No. 59.