Alpine Mill and Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 20, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 915 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

ALPINE MILL AND LUMBER COMPANY 915
LOUIS RUBINO, LOUIS P. RUBINO, JR., and PETER L.
RUBINO, individually, and as CO-PARTNERS, d/b/a ALPINE
MILL AND LUMBER COMPANY and ELMO HECKMAN
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA, LOCAL 266, AFL and ELMO HECKMAN.
Cases Nos . 20-CA-795 and 20-CB-264. January 20, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges filed by Elmo Heckman, an individual, the Gen-
eral Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, through the
Regional Director for the Twentieth Region (San Francisco,
California), issued a consolidated complaint dated March 24,
1953, against Louis Rubino, Louis P. Rubino, Jr., and Peter L.
Rubino, individually, and as co-partners, d/b/a Alpine Mill and
Lumber Company, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, Local 266, AFL, the Respondents, and herein
called, respectively, the Company and the Union, alleging that
the Company had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called
the Act, and alleging that the Union had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, charges, order consoli-
dating cases, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the
Company, the Union, and the charging party. The Respondent
filed answers wherein they denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Stockton, California,
on April 21 and 27 and August 19, 1953, before James R. Hem-
ingway, a Trial Examiner duly designated by the Associate Chief
Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. All parties were offered a full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross - examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During the
course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on vari-
ous motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.
On August 27, 1953, the Trial Examiner issuedhis Intermedi-
ate Report herein, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recom-
mending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative remedial action. Thereafter, the Company and the
Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs.
To the extent here material, the Board has reviewed the
rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing, and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. Such rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
107 NLRB No. 172.
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Report, the Respondents' exceptions thereto and supporting
briefs , and the entire record in the case , and is of the opinion
that the assertion of jurisdiction over the Company's operations
is not warranted.
The Company is engaged at Stockton, California, in pur-
chasing , milling , planing , and selling lumber and purchasing
and selling other building materials . Its total sales for 1952
were in excess of $600,000, including sales of approximately
$2,000 , shipped to points out -of-State , and sales of approxi-
mately $20,847 sold to the United States Army for delivery
at a California depot . Out-of-State sales and sales to the
Army amounted to about 1.1, percent of the Company's total
sales. Sales to the Army in 1951 amounted to $42,999. The
record gives no information as to the amount or source
of the Company' s purchases.
While we do not believe that the Company's operations are
wholly unrelated to commerce, we believe that, in view of
their essentially intrastate character and the small amount
of sales to points outside the State , the Company ' s opera-
tions do not have a sufficient impact on interstate commerce
to justify our taking jurisdiction in this proceeding.' Nor
do we believe that sales to the Army have a sufficient effect
upon national defense to warrant our asserting jurisdiction
for that reason. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the com-
plaint on the ground that it would not effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
Member Murdock, dissenting:
In view of the fact that this Employer sold $42,999 worth of
lumber to the United States Army in 1951 and $20,847 in
1952, I would assert jurisidiction over it consistent with 3
years of Board precedents following the Westport case 2 which
laid down the rule that the Board woul assert jurisdiction
over enterprises which substantially affect the national defense.
Although the majority in disagreeing refers to the "small
amount of sales to the Army" as not having "the kind of
effect upon national defense" to warrant taking, I note that
the amount is no less than in the lead Westport case. In
my Taichert, Inc.,' dissent I have set forth at length my
views on the proper application of the national defense
section of the Board's jurisidictional plan, and I shall not
repeat them in detail here.
'Upshur Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation, 107 NLRB 207, and cases cited there-
in San Jose City Lines, Inc., 106 NLRB 1167; Johnson Concrete Company, 106 NLRB 1255.
2
Westport Moving & Storage Co., 91 NLRB 902.
3107 NLRB 779.