Gold Electric Co.

78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Iowa. This appeal has docket No. 50344 and will be submitted to the Iowa Supreme Court at the April 1961 session. 6. On February 23, 1961, Petitioner Bowlavar filed a charge with the Board's Minneapolis Regional Office against the labor organization or its agents, naming Local 90, General Team and Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Men's Union, Edgar C. Hartzer, its secretary- treasurer and business agent, and Arthur L. Carson, its business agent. 7. No response has been received from any of the defendants or from the Minneapolis Regional Director. On the basis of the above the Board is of the opinion that: 1. Petitioner Bowlavar, Inc., is engaged in the business of operating a bowling alley and lounge, while Petitioner William Winslow is engaged in the business of operating a restaurant. Both Petitioners conduct detail enterprises. (Dale Mabrey Lane, Ltd., Case No. 12- RC-1010, not published in NLRB volumes; cf. Park Plaza Amuse- ment Company, 124 NLRB 428; Bick f ord's Inc., 110 NLRB 1904, at 1905; Restaurant t Tavern Owners Association of Salem, 126 NLRB 671. 2. The Board's current standard for asserting jurisdiction over re- tail enterprises within its statutory jurisdiction is a gross volume of business of at least $500,000 per annum. (Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88.) The Petitioner's operations, whether considered jointly or severally, do not meet the retail standard for the assertion of jurisdiction by the Board. Accordingly the parties are advised, pursuant to Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as follows : The Board would not assert jurisdiction over the operations of the Petitioners, Bowlavar, Inc., and William Winslow on the facts pre- sented herein because their operations do not satisfy the Board's standard for asserting jurisdiction over retail enterprises. CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH took no part in the consideration of the above Advisory Opinion. Dwight B. Gold, d/b/a Gold Electric Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1, AFL- CIO. Case No. AO-923. April 11, 1961 ADVISORY OPINION This petition for an advisory opinion has been filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as Local No. 1. As abridged, it contains the fol- lowing allegations : Dwight B. Gold, an individual doing business as Gold Electric Company, is engaged at St. Louis, Missouri, in the business of elec- 131 NLRB No. 16. GOLD ELECTRIC COMPANY 79 trical contracting. Gold, who employs nonunion workers, is perform- ing the electrical work at the construction of a restaurant known as "Le Quartier Francais" in St. Louis. On or about February 16,1961, Gold brought suit in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Mis- souri, for an injunction and damages against Local No. 1 and seven individuals. Said action has been docketed as Case No. 35663. On information and belief Local No. 1 further alleges that it has reason to believe that the operations of Gold "meet the requirements of the $50,000 outflow and inflow, direct or indirect test (Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81; Southern Dolomite, 129 NLRB 1342), and that the National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction over the operations of [Gold]." In his petition for injunction and damages Gold asserted that his business "is entirely local; that his operations do not affect commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela- tions Act and that his operations are such that the National Labor Relations Board would not assert jurisdiction over him." A response has been received from Gold admitting the foregoing averments of the petition herein except that he denies that his opera- tions meet the requirements of the Board's standards relating to direct or indirect inflow and outflow. Further responding, Gold alleges that: He and the parties defendant in the State court action stipulated in that action that his "gross volume of electrical contracting services for 1960 was $31,903.18"; certain premises being renovated will op- erate as a restaurant known as "Le Quartier Francais" or "French Quarter"; the cost of such renovation is $5,050; and "the maximum annual dollar gross income from [the operation of such restaurant] is not expected to exceed $100,000 annually." Manifestly, a nonretail enterprise with either annual outflow or in- flow of $50,000 or more is one over which the Board will exercise its jurisdiction. See the Twenty-third Annual Report of the NLRB, page 8; and Frank Schafer, Inc., 127 NLRB 210. But Local No. 1's general contention, based only on information and belief, that Gold's annual volume of business measures up to the foregoing standards in our opinion is inadequate to show that Gold's business actually is comprehended by such standards in the face of his express disavowal of this sweeping conclusion. Cf. Frank Schafer, Inc., 127 NLRB 210; James D. Jackson, d/b/a Jackson's Party Service, 126 NLRB 875. The only data upon which we can predicate our opinion in the pres- ent posture of the case are Gold's admissions in his response that his annual volume of business in 1960 amounted to $31,905.18, and that the anticipated annual business of the "French Quarter" will not exceed $100,000. On these figures it it patent that (1) since the "French Quarter" does not expect to do an annual gross volume of at least $500,000, the Board would not assert jurisdiction over it (Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88), and, therefore, Gold's serv- ices to it do not constitute indirect outflow (Siemons Mailing Service, 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 122 NLRB 81, 85) ; and (2) Gold's operations do not otherwise meet the Board's minimum standard of $50,000 annual gross business needed for the exercise of its powers over nonretail enterprises. Hence we conclude that on the uncontroverted facts properly before us we would not assert jurisdiction over the operations of Gold because his annual volume of business falls below the Board's minimum stand- ards applicable to nonretail businesses. Accordingly, the parties are advised that on the facts before it the Board would not assert jurisdiction over Gold because his operations fail to meet the Board's minimum standards for taking jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises. CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH took no part in the consideration of the above Advisory Opinion. Philamon Laboratories, Inc. and Local Union 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and "Employee Representation Com- mittee," Party in Interest. Case No. 2-CA-6832. April 11, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On September 20, 1960, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled 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. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three- member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. i We find no merit in the Respondent's exception to the Trial Examiner's reliance upon employee Freeman C. King's authorization card, absent testimony by King, based upon the Trial Examiner's comparison of King's handwriting. In the circumstances , the trier of fact could competently make the signature comparison . Combined Metal Mfg. Corp., 123 NLRB 895 ; 7 Wigmore, Evidence § 2016 n. 1 (3d ed. 1940 ). In any case, we find, as shown in the Intermediate Report, that even without King's card the Union had a clear majority of employees in the appropriate unit when it made its recognition demand on August 6, 1959, and on August 13, 1959, when Respondent was on notice of the Union's representation petition. 2 In connection with Section 8(a) (2) finding, we agree with the Trial Examiner that the August 14 employees' committee and the standing committee are "labor organizations," 131 NLRB No. 14.