Midwest Piping Co., Inc.

408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent began revamping its operational and personnel procedures in 1958, long before any suggestion of organizational activities, and revision of application forms was merely one of a series of recommendations made to it by a firm of cost accountants in such connection . In August 1958 Respondent purchased the forms containing the disputed item; the parties agree that this particular form is in standard commercial use. Respondent distributed the new form among its clerical staff in or about August 1958, and did not get around to the other employees until January 16, as already indicated. Contentions and Conclusions The General Counsel contends that Joy's speech constituted unlawful inducement to withdraw from the Union and that the mentioned item on the application form constituted unlawful interrogation concerning union membership ; the General Counsel further asserts, in effect, that the unlawful consequence of both incidents is heightened by their chronological relationship . Devoid, as this case is, of any coercion or promissory benefit or even the suggestion thereof which might result from employees ' union membership or their failure to withdraw from such mem- bership, and absent a showing as I also find , that employees were required to disclose their union membership, I am unable to sustain the allegations of unfair labor practices made here. I accordingly conclude that Respondent has not violated Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act as alleged. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Midwest Piping Co., Inc., The Fluor Corp., and Leslie Miller, Inc. and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the U.S. and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 185. Case No. AO-7. April 26, 1960 ADVISORY OPINION This case is before the Board upon a petition, pursuant to Section 102.98 of its Rules and Regulations, for an advisory opinion as to whether it would assert jurisdiction "over the matters involved" in a State court proceeding. That petition was filed by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (herein called United), its Local Union No. 185 (herein called Local 185), and Richard E. Skinner (herein called Skinner), the business representa- tive of said Local 185. All three collectively are referred to as petitioners. A. In substance, said petition alleges the following : 1. One Fred Gossett (herein called Gossett) brought an action against petitioners in the State District Court for a Judicial District of Nueces County, Texas, for damages resulting from conduct of petitioners depriving him "of his right to work at his trade" of pipe- fitter by discriminatorily refusing to send or refer him to jobs, and in causing him to be laid off on one job. Gossett complains that Skin- ner (a) "did not allow him to work on" a so-called Naval Air Station job and the Lon C. Hill job, and (b) caused him to be laid off from a job where he was employed by Fluor Corporation. ,127 NLRB No. 60. MIDWEST PIPING Co., INC., ETC. 409 2. The Naval Air Station job is being performed in Nueces County, Texas, by Leslie Miller, Inc., herein called Miller. Said Miller is a general mechanical contractor incorporated in Texas and is licensed to do and does business in a number of other States. "For its last two calendar years" Miller performed work valued in excess of $3,000,000 on Armed Forces bases, pursuant to contracts with the Departments of the Air Force, Navy, and Army, in Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, Okla- homa, Washington, Ohio, Michigan, and Wyoming. During the same period, Miller annually "received in excess of [$500,000] for materials shipped to points located outside the State of Texas pursuant to contracts received in excess of $500,000 for services performed in States other than the State of Texas." 3. The Lon C. Hill job is being performed in Nueces County, Texas, for Central Power and Light Company, herein called Central. Cen- tral has a contract with Midwest Piping Company, Inc. (herein called Midwest), providing that Midwest shall supply services and materials in excess of $500,000 on the Lon C. Hill job. Midwest, a Missouri corporation with headquarters there, does business in 35 to 40 States besides Missouri. During the "past two calendar years," Midwest's annual volume of business exceeded $25,000,000 "of which several million dollars of material were shipped across State lines" and it performed services valued in excess of a million dollars in States other than Texas and Missouri. Midwest furnished materials for the Lon C. Hill job valued in excess of $150,000 which were shipped di- rectly from points outside the State of Texas. 4. Fluor Corporation (herein called Fluor) is a California corpora- tion engaged in most of the States and, through a subsidiary, in Canada and England, in engineering and construction. Its gross annual volume of business for "its last two calendar years" exceeded $30,000,000. In connection with "the particular job in Nueces County" from which Gossett claims Skinner caused him to be discharged, Fluor's "contract was in excess of $2,000,000 of which $800,000 worth of materials were shipped to the job . . . from points . . . outside the State of Texas." 5. The "commerce data detailed above was agreed to and stipulated by" Gossett in the course of proceedings in the District Court. 6. Fluor "concedes the jurisdiction of the Board." B. No response has been received from Gossett. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that : 1. Miller, Midwest, and Fluor are engaged in various phases of the construction industry. In addition, Miller is an enterprise whose operations exert a substantial impact on the national defense. 2. Miller, Midwest, and Fluor, and each of them, are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the National Labor 410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Relations Act, as amended, now known as the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended. 3. The Board's standard for exercising jurisdiction over a nonretail enterprise is a minimum of $50,000 outflow or inflow, direct or indirect (Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85; Eau Claire and Vicinity Building and Construction Trades Council and Robert Bauer, 122, NLRB 1341, 1343; Frank Schafer, Inc., 127 NLRB 210, Case No. AO-8) . Its standard for asserting jurisdiction over enterprises whose operations exert a substantial impact on the national defense is a show- ing that "the Board has statutory jurisdiction." Ready Mixed Con- crete & Materials, Inc., 122 NLRB 318, 320. Cf. Mitchell v. Lublin, 358 U.S. 207, 213. Accordingly, the parties are advised, pursuant to Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, that the Board would assert juris- diction over the operations of Miller, Midwest, and Fluor with respect to labor disputes cognizable by the Board under Sections 8, 9, or 10 of the Act. The Board expressly does not pass upon the question of whether the conduct involved is cognizable under said Sections 8, 9, or 10, and limits its opinion solely to the question of asserting jurisdic- tion over the operations of the employers mentioned herein. Air Reduction Company, Incorporated ' and General Drivers, Warehousemen, and Helpers, Local Union Number 89, affili- ated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf - feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-3784. April 26, 1960 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Daniel J. Smitas, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees 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. 'The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 127 NLRB No. 53.