IBEW, Local Union 323, AFL-CIO

IBEW, LOCAL UNION 323, AFL-CIO 387 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: , CONCLUSIONS OF LAW i. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. General Counsel has failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER The complaint should be, and is hereby, dismissed in its entirety. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 323, AFL-CIO and William E. Pedlowe, d/b/a Pedlowe Elec- tric. Case No. AO-81. December 16, 1964 . ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed on September 18, 1964, by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 323, AFL-CIO, herein called the Petitioner, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Thereafter, on November 16, 1964, the Petitioner filed an affidavit in support of its petition. In pertinent part, the petition and affidavit allege as follows : 1. On August 17, 1964, William E. Pedlowe, d/b/a Pedlowe Elec- tric, herein- called the Employer, W. W. Arnold Construction Co. Inc., herein called Arnold, and Netto Construction, Inc., herein called Netto, filed an amended complaint for injunction against the Peti- tioner in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for St. Lucie County, Florida, docketed as Case No. 8287-E. The complaint alleges that the Petitioner picketed the Employer. at two construction jobs in St. Lucie County where Arnold and Netto were the general contractors and where the Employer was engaged in performing electrical work. It also alleges that the Petitioner's picketing constituted "unlawful secondary boycotts," causing the employees of Arnold and Netto, secondary employers, to stop work. On August 18, 1964, the State court granted a formal temporary injunction. 2. The Employer is an electrical contractor in Fort Pierce, Flor- ida. The Petitioner's attorney alleges, on information and belief, that during the past 12 months the Employer purchased from local suppliers electrical material manufactured outside the State of Flor- ida in the'amount of $89,300, of which $43,800 was for the Arnold and Netto jobs while the balance of $45,500 was for other jobs in Fort Pierce, Florida. 150 NLRB No. 13. 388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same labor dispute pending before the Board. 4. The State court has made no findings of fact as to the aforesaid commerce data. 5. Although served with a copy of the petition for Advisory Opin- ion, no response as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations has been filed by the Employer. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that: 1. The Employer is a nonretail enterprise engaged in the electrical contracting business in Fort Pierce, Florida. 2. The current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over non- retail enterprises within the Board's statutory jurisdiction requires an annual minimum of $50,000 out-of-State inflow or outflow, direct or indirect. Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85. The Employer's more than $50,000 local purchases of materials manufac- tured outside the State of Florida during the past 12 months consti- tute indirect inflow under the Board's Siemons decision and satisfy the current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises' Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that on the allegations submitted herein the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cog- nizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. IIn view of our determination herein , it has been unnecessary to consider the allega- tions of indirect inflow of secondary employers to the picketed Arnold project. Cf. Amoskeag Construction Company (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, APL- 010), 147 NLRB 166. Women's Bindery Union, Local No. 42, International Brother- hood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO i and National Publishing Division, McCall Corporation and Washington Mailers' Union No. 29 affiliated with the International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO.' Case No. 5-CD-97. December 16, 1964 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, following a charge filed by National Publishing Divi- sion, McCall Corporation, herein called the Employer, alleging that the Women's Bindery Union, Local No. 42, International Brother- hood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, herein called the Bindery Women, had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D ) of the Act. A hearing was held 'Amended to conform to a motion for amendment of the pleadings made at the hearing. 2 Amended as in footnote 1, supra. 150 NLRB No. 34.