Kenilworth Delivery Service, Inc.

1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kenilworth Delivery Service, Inc. and Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local 639, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Peti- tioner. Case No. 5-RC-3972. February 8, 1963 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 Maurice J. Nelligan, Jr., 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in the business of storing, handling, and delivering of commodities in and around Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia. During the period from July 1, 1961, to June 30, 1962, it derived $46,157.17 from the transportation of commodities from its Maryland location directly to points outside the State of Maryland. During the same period it derived $4,27 9.39 from the transportation of commodities within the State of Maryland for enterprises over which the Board will assert jurisdiction under any standard except indirect outflow and indirect inflow. As the Employer derives in excess of $50,000 gross revenues for the transportation of commodities in interstate commerce, including the performance of such services for enterprises as to which the Board will assert juris- diction under any standard except indirect outflow and indirect inflow, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion herein. See H P 0 Service, Inc., 122 NLRB 394. The purport of that decision is to equate transportation directly out of the State with within-State transportation services to other enterprises directly engaged in interstate commerce, and to apply the $50,000 standard applicable to either category by adding the amount realized from each. This is consistent with Board policy in adding direct and indirect out- flow, or direct and indirect inflow. See Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85. As stated in H P 0 Service, Inc., supra, this stand- ard replaces that of Edelen Transfer and Storage Company, Inc.,. 110 NLRB 1881, which combined direct and indirect outflow but limited the consideration of indirect outflow to interlining with other transit facilities. See also Pazan Motor Freight, Inc., 116 NLRB 1568, footnote 4. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain, employees of the employer. 140 NLRB No. 109. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. 1191 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. In accord with the stipulation of the parties, we find that the following employees of the Employer at its Prince Georges County, Maryland, operation constitute a unit appropriate for collective- bargaining purposes : All drivers, helpers, and warehousemen, exclud- ing office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and :supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company, Inc. and Jacque Welch, Milo Henry Dick. Cases Nos. 27-CA-1195-1 and 27-CA-1195-2. February 11, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On September 17, 1962, Trial Examiner William J. Brown 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 attached Inter- :mediate Report. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of such allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made 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 briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and, as it finds merit in some of the General Counsel's exceptions, hereby adopts the findings of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith. 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by Manager Showalter's threats to employees of layoff or other economic reprisal if they engaged in union activities., 3 No exceptions were filed to these findings of violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 140 NLRB No. 113.