Treasure State Equipment Co.

TREASURE STATE EQUIPMENT COMPANY 529 Treasure . State , Equipment Company and International Union -'-of Operating Engineers, Local Union 371, A. F. L., Petitioner: Case No. 19-RC-1660. October 18, 1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert L. Gese, 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 Petitioner seeks a unit of employees at the Employer's Kalispell, Montana, operation. The Employer moves to dismiss, the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The Employer is engaged in the sale of logging equipment and road construction equipment, such as tractors, shovels, and loaders, through outlets at Kalispell and Missoula, Montana. It operates under exclu- sive franchises from International Harvester Company, and other concerns. During the past year the Employer made purchases outside Montana valued' at approximately $750,000. In Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling, Wage and Hour Administrator, 326 U. S. 657, the Supreme Court found that a concern similar to-that involved in this proceeding was not a retail or service establishment. In line with the decision in that case, we find that the Employer's business herein is nonretail in nature. Therefore as the enterprise involved has an annual direct inflow of goods in excess of $500,000; its operations in this respect satisfy the Board's jurisdictional require- ments,z and we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the,meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, we deny-the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. A question affecting commerce exists 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. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: ' The names of the parties appear herein as corrected at the hearing . After the close of the hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation supplementing the commerce data which had been presented at the hearing . This stipulation is hereby incorporated into the record. 2 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481, 483 s The Employer refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. As it is an organization which represents employees for collective -bargaining purposes , we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act 114 NLRB No. 95. 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All employees engaged in the repairing, painting, and servicing of equipment at the Employer's Kalispell, Montana, operation, excluding office employees, clerical employees, parts department employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act .4 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] ACTING CHAIRMAN RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. S There is no dispute as to the apps opriate unit The Anaconda Company 1 and Manford L. Reeves, Petitioner and Coso Mine, Mill and Chemical Workers, Local No. 841, of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers. Case No. 31-RD-261. October 18,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis A. Gordon, 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 Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union, which is currently recognized by the Employer as the bar- gaining representative of the employees designated in the petition, is no longer the representative as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act. 3. Since 1951, at least, the Employer and the Union have ,been in' contractual relations with each other. In that year, the parties ex- ecuted a contract, effective from July 1, 1951, to June 30, 1953, pro- viding for its automatic renewal in the absence of a 60-day notice to modify. As amended by supplemental agreements and by opera- tion of the automatic renewal clause, the contract continued in effect up to and including June 30, 1955. Following negotiations instituted at an undisclosed date before June 8, 1955, the parties reached agree- ment on a new contract, to become effective July 1, which the parties initialed on June 8 and later formalized without change on June 18. The Employer and Union customarily followed such a practice in executing their agreements. 'The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing 114 NLRB No. 91.