Ralph O. Wigger, Inc.

RALPH 0. WIGGER, INC. Ralph O. Wigger, Inc. and Local 169, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case AO-104. June 19,1967 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed on March 22, 1967, by Ralph O. Wigger, Inc., herein called the Employer, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Section 102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. On May 24, 1967, Local 169, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, filed a response requesting the Board to deny the petition for Advisory Opinion. Thereafter on June 2, 1967, the Employer filed a reply to the response. In pertinent part, the petition, response, and reply allege as follows: 1. A complaint for an injunction against the Union and two inviduals was filed by the Employer in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, herein called the State Court, having Docket No. Civ. 67-5823. When the State Court granted the Union's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that all matters alleged therein were preempted by the National Labor Relations Board Act, the Employer filed a notice of appeal. 2. The Employer, a corporation incorporated and doing business only in the State of Illinois, is engaged in residential and apartment house construction. 3. Upon a charge filed by the Employer against the Union in Case 14-CC-415, Joseph H. Solien, the Board's Regional Director for Region 14, refused to issue an unfair labor practice complaint "because it appears the operations of the Employer do not meet any appropriate standard of the Board for asserting jurisdiction ...." Thereafter, on March 8, 1967, the General Counsel denied the Employer's appeal from this refusal to issue a complaint on the ground that "[t]he operations of Wigger during 1966, even when considered together with the operations of secondary employers at the locations affected by the alleged conduct herein, were insufficient to meet any applicable Board standard for the assertion of jurisdiction. Cf. Madison Building & Construction Trades Council, 134 NLRB 517." 4. According to the Employer, it filed with the Board in Case 14-CC-415 the following commerce data which it alleges to be still current and accurate. During the past calendar or fiscal year, the Employer's total dollar volume of sales or performance of services did not equal or exceed $500,000, but consisted of $150,000 worth of 537 apartment construction for its own purposes (apartments to be rented by the Employer). During that same period, its sales or services rendered to employers outside the State of Illinois or to local employers, who in turn made sales to employers outside the State, did not exceed $50,000 and "in fact, was none." Further, during the fiscal period, the Employer made approximately $4,000 worth of out-of-State purchases of goods or services and approximately $25,000 local purchases of goods or services which originated outside the State of Illinois. 5. In its response, the Union generally denies the currency and accuracy of the Employer's commerce data and alleges the absence of a formal presentation or a hearing as to the commerce data and the Employer's business. 6. There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same labor dispute pending before the Board. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that: 1. The Employer is an enterprise engaged in residential and apartment house construction solely within the State of Illinois. For purposes of this Advisory Opinion, we shall assume that the Employer may be a retail or a nonretail enterprise. 2. The Board's current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over retail enterprises within its statutory jurisdiction is an annual gross volume of business of at least $500,000 (Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88, 89); while the current nonretail standard requires an annual mininum of $50,000 out-of-State inflow or outflow, direct or indirect (Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85). 3. Except for the Union's general denial of the accuracy and currency of the Employer's commerce data and its claim that there has not been a formal presentation or a hearing with respect thereto, the accuracy and currency of the information supplied by the Employer has not been impeached or seriously placed in doubt. In these circumstances, we rely upon this information for the purposes of rendering an Advisory Opinion. As it does not appear that the Employer's annual gross volume of business exceeds $500,000 or that its annual out-of- State inflow or outflow, direct or indirect, amounts to $50,000, the Board's discretionary standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over retail or nonretail enterprises has not been met. Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the allegations submitted herein, the Board would not assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations. 165 NLRB No. 95