Matthews Construction Co.

MATTHEWS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 435 We agree with the Union that the changes in the duties and re- sponsibilities of these three employees do not warrant their removal from the unit. Matching colors requires only visual acuity, while mix- ing inks to obtain a satisfactory match does not, in our opinion, re- quire the kind of judgment and specialized training which qualifies one as a technical employee.' In fact, under the circumstances present here, we are convinced that their interests and working conditions have not been changed substantially in the jobs they now have. Other arguments made by the Employer for their exclusion, namely, that their work is creative or that they fulfill a management responsibility in achieving color matches, are without merit. We, therefore, find that work of the nature now performed by Schwier, Reynolds, and Peters in the gravure services department is within the certified unit. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Union's motion to clarify its certifica- tion in Case No. 9-RA-46 be granted so as to include within the produc- tion and maintenance unit the color matching and ink formulation work of the gravure services department. 8 Litton Induatriea of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722. Robert M. Matthews, d/b/a Matthews Construction Company and Eastern Iowa District Council of Carpenters of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Case No. AO-56. May 2, 1963 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed on behalf of the Eastern Iowa District Council of Carpenters of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, herein called the Petitioner, by Ellis Howern, Petitioner's business agent, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Section 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Thereafter, on April 11, 1963, Robert Matthews, d/b/a Matthews Construction Company, herein called the Employer or primary employer, filed a response to petition for Advisory Opinion. In pertinent part, the petition, response, and attachments thereto allege as follows : 1. The Petitioner is a party defendant to an injunction proceeding in the Twentieth Judicial District Court of Iowa, Des Moines County, Burlington, Iowa, Docket No. 13761 filed by the Employer seeking to enjoin the Petitioner from picketing the construction site where the 142 NLRB No. 53. 712-548-64-vol . 142-29 436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer was performing carpenter work under contract with Nelson Funeral Home, the general contractor. 2. In the district court proceeding, the Employer alleges that the picketing of the jobsite with a sign respecting wages and working con- ditions constitutes an illegal demand for recognition and a secondary boycott which has stopped the transportation and delivery of goods and building materials to the project site by three secondary em- ployers, Fullerton Lumber Company, W. G. Block Company, and Willson Sand and Gravel Company. In addition, the picketing al- legedly prevented other unnamed secondary companies from entering upon the construction site. 3 . The Employer is engaged as a general contractor in Burlington, Des Moines County, Iowa, performing residential and commercial construction. He performs no construction work outside of Iowa and none of his employees are union members. 4. Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion based upon information and belief, the Employer has submitted an affidavit stating that during the calendar year 1962, according to his books and records, the Em- ployer's purchases from various suppliers of goods and materials which did or might have originated outside the State of Iowa would not exceed $50,000. 5. Upon information and belief, the Petitioner alleges that Fuller- ton and Block, which are located in Burlington, Iowa, each are multi- state enterprises; and that each purchases goods and services which originated outside of the State of Iowa far in excess of $50,000. The Employer admits that these two companies do more than $50,000 business in interstate commerce and that during 1962, his total purchases from these companies were $15,228.07 and $3,056.15, respectively. 6. No findings with respect to the commerce data hereinabove set forth have been made by the district court. 7. There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding concerning this labor dispute pending before the Board. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that: 1. The Employer is a general contractor engaged in residential and commercial construction in Burlington, Iowa. 2. The current Board standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises within its statutory jurisdiction requires an an- nual minimum of $50,000 inflow or outflow across State lines, direct or indirect. Siemens Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85. 3. During the calendar year 1962, the Employer's purchases of goods and materials which did or might have originated from out- side of Iowa would not exceed $50,000. As there is no showing that the Employer has a sufficient amount of out-of-State inflow, his JOHNSON READY MIX CO. 437 operations would not appear to meet the Siemoim standard for the :assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises. 4. In cases involving secondary activity by a union which may be violative of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act, where, as here, the primary employer's operations do not appear to meet the Board's jurisdic- tional standard, the Board will take into consideration for juris- dictional purposes not only the operations of the primary employer but also the entire operations of the secondary employers at the loca- tion affected by the alleged conduct involved.' As the Petitioner's picketing resulted in the stoppage of deliveries to the construction site by secondary employers, Fullerton, Block, and Willson, and in the prevention of other unnamed companies from entering the job, site, the operations of these secondary employers at the site affected by the picketing may be combined with those of the primary employer and the combined total may be considered in resolving the jurisdic- tional question. However, there is no indication as to the extent to which the Petitioner's picketing affected the secondary employers' constructon site operations. Under these circumstances, the Board is unable to make a meaningful jurisdictional determination herein. Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the allegations here present, the Board is unable to conclude whether or not it would assert jurisdiction herein. i Weibel Excavating Company, 137 NLRB 1788, and cases cited in footnote 1. Johnson Ready Mix Co. and General Drivers and Helpers Union Local No. 554, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 17-CA-1998. May 2, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges duly filed by General Drivers and Helpers Union Local No. 554, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, issued a complaint dated July 31, 1962, against Johnson Ready Mix Co., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended. Copies of the charges, complaint, and notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. 142 NLRB No. 50.