Berglund Chevrolet, Inc.

550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Office, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60603, Telephone No. Central 6-9660, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Berglund Chevrolet, Inc. and Truck Drivers Local Union No. 649. Case No. A0-57. May 10, 1963 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed by Berglund Chevrolet, Inc., herein called the Employer, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Section 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, ,as amended. In pertinent part, the petition alleges as follows : 1. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 649, herein called the Union, has filed with the New York State Labor Relations Board, herein called NYSLRB, a petition in Case No. WE-1382 requesting that it be certified as the representative of the Employer's employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. 2. The Employer is a retail automobile sales and service agency having its place of business at 215 West Fourth Street, Jamestown, New York. 3. During the calendar year 1962, the Employer's gross sales to- taled upwards of $3,000,000 of which in excess of $250,000 represented receipts from sales and services from outside the State of New York and of which in excess of $250,000 represented sales of goods, prod- ucts, and services to businesses subject to the jurisdiction of the Board. During the same year the Employer purchased from outside the State of New York cars and trucks valued upwards of $2,000,000 and parts valued in excess of $120,000. 4. The NYSLRB has made no findings with respect to the com- merce data hereinabove set forth. 5. There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same labor dispute pending before the Board. 6. Although served with a copy of the petition for Advisory Opin- ion herein, no response as provided by the Board's Rules and Regu- lations has been filed by the Union. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that : 1. The Employer is a retail enterprise operating an automobile sales and service agency in Jamestown, New York. 2. During the calendar year 1962, the Employer did a gross volume of business in excess of $500,000 and made from outside the State 142 NLRB No. 63. FRANKE'S, INC. 551 of New York purchases of cars and trucks valued at upwards of $2,000,000 and of parts valued in excess of $120,000. 3. The Board's current standard for asserting jurisdiction over retail 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 Employer's out-of-State purchases, constituting direct inflow under the Board's decision in Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85 bring its operations within the Board's statutory jurisdiction ; ' while its gross volume of business meets the dollar-volume test of the Board's standard for asserting jurisdiction over retail enterprises.2 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 would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. 1 N.L.R.B. v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 371 U.S. 224. = McCarthy Enterprises tin Community Motors , 128 NLRB 60. Franke's, Inc. and Hotel-Motel, Restaurant Employees Union Local No. 200, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bar- tenders International Union, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 26-CA- 1212, 26-CA-1230, and I6-CA-1248. May .13, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On October 1, 1962, Trial Examiner James F. Foley 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 Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommended that these allegations be dismissed. There- after, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report together with a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a reply brief. 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 [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. 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 briefs, and the entire record in 142 NLRB No. 67.