Murner Oil Co.

7 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAROLD C. MURNER and IDA M. MURNER d/b/a MURNER OIL COMPANY' and GENERAL TEAMSTERS UNION, LO- CAL NO. 406, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-2268. March 26, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Myron K, Scott, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 2. 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 Employer is an independent jobber of gasoline, motor oils , greases, fuel oils, tires , batteries , and accessories. Its sole office and place of business is located in Traverse City, Michigan, and its entire business is carried on within an approximately 18-mile radius of that city. During the 1952 calendar year, the Employer made purchases valued at $328,536.81, of which $13,500 represented material received directly from outside the State of Michigan. During the same period, the Employer's sales aggregated $399,970, all of which were made locally. It is uncontested that the Employer's financial data does not bring it within any of the established Board criteria for asserting jurisdiction. The Petitioner maintains, however, that the Employer is an integral part of a multistate enterprise and that the Board should accordingly assert jurisdiction. We cannot agree. It is true that.the Employer operates under franchise agree- ments with both the Shell Oil Company and the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. But the franchise agreements do not of themselves warrant the Board in asserting jurisdiction.2 It is well established that the Board's assumption of jurisdiction in "franchised dealer" cases turns on the degree of control 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 Reiley's Stores, Inc., 96 NLRB 516. 108 NLRB No. 12. MURNER OIL COMPANY 79 exercised by a manufacturer, through its franchise agreement, over a locally owned dealer or distributor.' Indeed, the Board has specifically required , as a condition to its exercise of jurisdiction , that that degree of control over the dealer's operations be substantial."4 In the present instance , Shell and Firestone through their respective franchises do not control the Employer' s prices or the adequacy of the Employer ' s sales and storage facilities, Nor do these franchises , by word or practice , prescribe capital requirements for the Employer , provide for the inspection of its financial records , restrict its place of business and hours, or control its personnel . Indeed , neither Firestone nor Shell has ever attempted to assert control over the Employer's business . Moreover , the Employer purchases some petroleum products from companies other than Shell and is free to pur- chase tires , batteries , and accessories from companies other than Firestone . In fact, Firestone has a store in Traverse City which competes with the Employer. We therefore are of the opinionthat the very indicia of "sub- stantial control, " upon which the Board has relied in the past in asserting jurisdiction over "franchised dealers ," are not here presents Upon the entire record, we find that the degree of control exercised by either Shell or Firestone over the Employer' s operations is not so extensive or so substantial as to warrant , under Board precedent , the assertion of juris- diction over the Employer as an integral part of a multistate enterprise .6 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition filed herein. [The Board dismissed the petition.] Members Murdock and Beeson took no part inthe considera- tion of the above Decision and Order. 3See. e g., Howell Chevrolet Co., 95 NLRB 410, affirmed by United States Supreme Court, December 14, 1953; Ilallam and Boggs Truck & Implement Co , 95 NLRB 443. 4See, e.g., E. R. Goddard & Co , Inc., 105 NLRB 849. 6 See cases cited in footnote 3, supra. 6See, e.g., Ben Franklin Stores, 94 NLRB 779; Kenosha Liquor Co., et al, 104 NLRB 189; Reiley's Stores, Inc., 96 NLRB 5L6; P. R. McDowell d/b/a Maytag, 100 NLRB 770.