Stor-Ad Printers, Inc.

556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Stor-Ad Printers, Inc. and Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union 146, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 20-RC-4460 and P30-CA1968. May 16, 1961 DECLARATORY ORDER Pursuant to Section 102.105 of the Board's Rules and Regulations and Section 101.42 of the Board's Statements of Procedure, counsel for the General Counsel has filed a petition praying for a declaratory order as to whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over Stor-Ad Print- ers, Inc., hereinafter called the Employer. It appears from the said petition that : 1. Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union 146, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL- CIO, herein called the Union, is the Charging Party in the unfair labor practice case, Case No. 20-CA-1968, and the Petitioner in the repre- sentation case, Case No. 20-RC-4460, both cases involving the Em- ployer herein. 2. The Employer is a California corporation engaged in the busi- ness of printing and in the preparation and distribution of direct-mail advertising circulars entirely within the State of California. The petition does not show that the Employer made any out-of-State pur- chases. 3. On behalf of its customers , all local retail stores within the State of California, the Employer printed and distributed, through the United States mails to consumers in the vicinity of San Jose, Cali- fornia, advertising circulars mentioning by brand name various na- tionally advertised groceries, cosmetics, and sundries. For such serv- ices during the past fiscal year, the Employer received from its retail store customers a gross total of approximately $325,136. This gross, sum included $135,136 that the retail store customers reimbursed the Employer for the bulk mailing costs paid directly to the United States Post Office. 4. None of the retail store customers receive $50,000 from outside the State of California. The petition is silent as to whether any of the retail stores did a gross volume of business of at least $500,000. 5. No proceeding involving the subject matter herein is presently pending before an agency or court of a State or Territory. 6. No response to the petition herein has been received from either the Union or Employer. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that : 1. The Employer is a nonretail enterprise engaged in a direct mail- ing service within the State of California. 131 NLRB No. 66. FINMORE CORP., ETC. 557 2. The Board's current standard for asserting jurisdiction over a nonretail enterprise within its statutory jurisdiction is a minimum of $50,000 outflow (out-of-State sales) or inflow (out-of-State purchases) either direct or indirect. (Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 at 85; American Advertising Distributors, 129 NLRB 640; Reliable Mailing Service Company, 113 NLRB 1263.) The petition does not establish that the Employer's operations satisfy the Board's direct in- flow or outflow standards for asserting jurisdiction. 3. Nor does the petition establish that the Employer meets the in- direct outflow standard for assertion of jurisdiction. Under the Sie- mons case supra, "indirect outflow refers to sales of goods or services to users meeting any of the Board's jurisdictional standards." None of the retail store customers for whom the Employer furnished serv- ices meet the jurisdictional standard of a gross volume of business of at least $500,000 for retail enterprises. (Carolina Supplies and Ce- ment Co., 122 NLRB 88.) As it is not established that the retail stores satisfy the Board's jurisdictional standards, the over $325,136 worth of services furnished them by the Employer do not constitute indirect outflow under the Siemons case. Accordingly, the Board has determined and the parties are advised, pursuant to Section 102.110 of the Board's Rules and Regulations and to Section 101.43 of the Board's Statements of Procedure, that on the facts submitted herein, the Board would not assert jurisdiction be- cause the Employer's operations do not satisfy any of the Board's standards for asserting jurisdiction. MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above Declaratory Order. Finmore Corp., Falmore Cab Corp., Ebony Cab Co., Inc., Eron Cab Corp., Nif Cab Corp., and their agents, James Finn, Owen Finn and James Fee and Local 826, Taxicab Drivers and Terminal Employees, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 2-CA-7321. May 16, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On February 3, 1961, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to 131 NLRB No. 84.