James M. Casida, et al.

526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the United Steelworkers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, to negotiate for or represent as exclusive bargaining agent the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named Union, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such an understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All employees in the following departments of Draper Corporation plant located at Hopedale, Massachusetts: department 38, department 86, depart- ment 35, department 46, department 34, department 69, department 43, and department 18, including inventory clerks, but excluding all other employees, the two department 18 employees permanently assigned to department 16, master mechanic, assistant master mehcanic, foremen, assistant foremen, office clerical employees, plant clerical employees, tech- nical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act. DRAPER CORPORATION, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Tele- phone No. 523-8100 if they have any questions concerning this notice of compliance with its provisions. James M. Casida, et al. and International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, and Local 351, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. Case No. AO-84. May 10, 1965. ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR ADVISORY OPINION A petition was filed on April 22, 1965, by James M. Casida and 27 other individuals, herein called the Petitioners, pursuant to Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, for an Advisory Opinion with respect to a jurisdictional issue raised in a damage suit for alleged breach of contract and fraudu- lent representations instituted by the Petitioners in the State District Court of Hutchinson County, Texas, against International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, and Local 351, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Unions. The State court action was instituted after the General Counsel had refused to issue a complaint upon unfair labor practice charges filed by the Petitioners and had dismissed the charges. The judgment of the State District Court awarding damages was appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Seventh Supreme Judicial District of Texas at Amarillo, Texas, which reversed the judgment on the ground that the matters in litigation had been preempted by the National Labor 152 NLRB No. 58. McANALLY ENTERPRISE, INC. 527 Relations Act, as amended. The Supreme Court of Texas did not disturb the reversal. On March 29, 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the Petitioners' petition for writ of certiorari. Petitioners are filing a motion for rehearing. In the petition for advisory opinion, the Petitioners have requested that the Board issue an opinion that their "causes of action have not been preempted by the `Labor Management Relations Act."' No responses as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations have been filed by the Unions. The National Labor Relations Board has duly considered the allega- tions of the petition. The Board's advisory opinion procedures "are designed primarily to determine questions of jurisdiction by applica- tion of the Board's discretionary standards to the `commerce' opera- tions of an employer." 1 As the issue posed herein by the Petitioners relates to whether the subject matter of the State court proceedings is preempted by the Act and does not concern questions of the appli- cability of the Board's discretionary commerce standards, it does not fall within the intendment of the Board's Advisory Opinion rules .2 For these reasons, we shall dismiss the Petition for Advisory Opinion herein. [The Board dismissed, for the reasons set forth above, the Petition for Advisory Opinion.] 'Broward County Port Authority, 144 NLRB 1539; Interlake Steamship Company and Pickand8 Mather & Co ., 138 NLRB 576 and cases cited therein. 2 Ibid. McAnally Enterprise, Inc.' and Meat Cutters Local 439, Amal- gamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO;' and Sales Drivers & Dairy Employees Local 166, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers of America,' Joint Petitioners. Case No. 91-RC-9179. May 10, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert Arey. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Employer and Joint Petitioners filed briefs with the National Labor Relations Board. I The names of the Employer and the Joint Petitioners appear in the caption as amended at the hearing. 152 NLRB No. 50.