Central Valley Pipe Co.

CENTRAL VALLEY PIPE COMPANY 233 I think the proper course would be to remand this case for a hearing, to adduce evidence as to whether or not the challenged voters have lost their right to reinstatement because they have been permanently replaced. CENTRAL VALLEY PIPE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OP MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 87, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 20-RC-2656. January 18,1955 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La- bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert Schneider, hear- ing 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 : The Employer, a California corporation, has its main office and plant at Fresno, California, and branch warehouses at Stockton, Cali- fornia, and Burley, Idaho. The Fresno plant and Stockton warehouse are involved herein.' The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of well pipe casing. It also sells and distributes line pipe which it obtains, already fabricated, from Kaiser's Fontana, Califor- nia, plant. During the year ending December 31, 1953, the Fresno plant purchased raw materials valued at $175,000, of which approxi- mately $60,000 represented shipments received directly from out-of- State. During the same period, the Fresno plant's sales were in ex- cess of $600,000 in value, of which approximately $37,500 represented direct out-of-State shipments. The record indicates that another $37,500 worth of materials was shipped outside the State to the Idaho warehouse on order of the Fresno plant. However, those shipments were not first received by the Fresno plant, but were sent directly from Kaiser, the Employer's supplier, to the Idaho warehouse.2 It is apparent from the foregoing that the total direct out-of-State ship- ments by the Fresno plant itself amount to only $37,500, which is less than the Board's minimum direct outflow requirement.' Apart from other considerations, as the additional $37,500 shipments to the Idaho warehouse mentioned above were made not by the Fresno plant, but by the supplier, they cannot be included in the Fresno plant's outflow. 'Only two employees work at the Stockton branch which Is used primarily as a ware- house for light pipe. The Idaho warehouse has no regular employees. 2 No separate jurisdictional facts are presented in the record as to the Stockton and Idaho warehouses. s Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481. 111 NLRB No. 38. `234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As the Employer's operations fall short of the Board's minimum jurisdictional requirements, we shall dismiss the instant petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 'CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY and RALPH N. JONES, EDWARD R. SALATI, ALDO CIMINO, GEORGE S. SMITH, ARTHUR W. WOOD, WILLIAM R. MURPHY, TONY BASIL, CLAUDE MINOS, WILLIAM R. MURPHY, ROB- ERT J. GARTLAND, PETITIONERS and LOCAL SO-A, UNITED PACKING- HOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 4-RD-121, 4-RD- 122, 4-RD-123, 4-RD-124, 4-RD-195, /.-RD-126, 4-RD-1927, 4-RD-128, 4-RD-129, and 4-RD-130. January 18, 1955 Decision and Order Upon petitions for decertification duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act a consolidated hearing was held before William Naimark, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rul- ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioners, employees of the Employer, assert that the Union is no longer the representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petitions. The Union is a labor organization currently recognized by the Em- ployer as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees designated in the petitions. 3. No questions affecting commerce exist 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 for the following reasons:' The Petitioners in nine of the decertification petitions herein seek to sever from the established production and maintenance unit at the Employer's Camden, New Jersey, operation, which is represented by the Union, the following groups of employees who were unsuccess- fully sought by the International Association of Machinists in an earlier certification proceeding decided in July 1954: 2 carpenters, ' In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to determine issues relating to the status of the Union's contract as a bar to this proceeding. 2 Campbell Soup Company, 109 NLRB 475. 111 NLRB No. 36.