Ace Venetian Blind Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 447 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of MAURICE FREEMAN, HARRY WELSIZ AND MILTON
MANDELL DOING BUSINESS AS ACE VENETIAN BLIND MFG. Co., EM-
PLOYER and BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL #348, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-1217.Decided December 7, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before. Leo J. Hal-
loran, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The business of the Employer :
The Employer, a copartnership having its plant and offices at Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, is engaged in the manufacture of venetian
blinds. During the first 6 months in 1949, the Employer purchased
supplies and raw materials valued at approximately $62,000, of which
85 percent was shipped to it from points outside the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. During the same period, the Employer's sales to-
taled approximately $137,000, of which not in excess of one-half of 1
percent was shipped to points outside the Commonwealth? The Em-
ployer distributes its venetian blinds to small retailers who sell and
install them in private residences. Of the Employer's total output,
approximately 80 percent consisted of blinds custom made to indi-
vidual specifications supplied by the retailer, and the remaining 20
percent was produced for stock purposes.
The Employer contends that it is not engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act. We find that while the Employer's opera-
tions are not wholly unrelated to commerce, they are essentially local
I It was testified on behalf of the Employer that the Employer's policy was not to make
sales outside of the Commonwealth but that a negligible amount of such sales are made
personally to accommodate the salesmen of its out-of -State suppliers.
87 NLRB No. 69. 447
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in character and, consequently, it would not effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case 2
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
2 Tower Tool and Die Company, 85 NLRB 127 ; Gibson Paint Company, 85 NLRB 160;
Asato Company, 85 NLRB 1187 ; Detroit Canvas Manufacturers Association, 80 NLRB 267.
Member Reynolds believes that the assertion of jurisdiction in this case would be war-
ranted by reason of the substantial inflow of materials from out-of-State sources during
the course of the Employer's manufacturing operations. He deems himself bound, however,
by the decision of the Board majority in the Detroit Canvas case.