Aurora Moving and Storage Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 771 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

AURORA MOVING & STORAGE CO.
Aurora Moving and Storage Co., Inc.' and
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America , Local Union No. 17 , Petitioner. Case
27-RC-3541
April 30, 1969
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed on January 3, 1969,
under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Clinton M. Elges. The Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the National
Labor Relations Board finds:
1. All jurisdictional facts were stipulated on the
record. The Employer is licensed by the Colorado
Public Utilities Commission to pack, crate, store,
and transfer goods within a limited area of the
State. During its fiscal year ending November 30,
1968, the Employer grossed over $145,000 for the
performance of its services. The question is whether
the Board should assert jurisdiction under any of its
standards.
The current standard for transportation and other
enterprises engaged as links in interstate commerce
is set forth in H P 0 Service, Inc., 122 NLRB 394,
where the Board announced that it would assert
jurisdiction over links in commerce if they derived
at least $50,000 per annum from such operations or
if they performed services valued at $50,000 or more
per year for enterprises over which the Board would
assert jurisdiction under any standard other than
indirect inflow or indirect outflow.
During its past fiscal year, the Employer, as an
essential link in interstate commerce, performed the
following services from which it received over
$45,000:
(a) Nearly $15,000 was received from the
Department of Defense for packing, crating, and
storing household and other goods of military
personnel who were transferred out of the Colorado
area.
(b) Over $10,000 was received from two exporting
companies for packing, crating, and storing of goods
subsequently shipped overseas. Each exporter did
over $50,000 worth of interstate business.
(c) Nearly $20,000 was received from interstate
van lines for packing and crating goods which were
subsequently moved out of the State. Each van line
did over $50,000 worth of interstate business.
These amounts are clearly includable in
'The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
771
computing the link-in-commerce jurisdictional
amount because the amounts were derived from
services performed on goods destined for
transportation across State lines , on behalf of
employers who met the Board's jurisdictional
standards (the Department of Defense is included
under the doctrine set forth in footnote 12, Siemons
Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85).
In addition, over $10,000 was received from
private individuals for the packing and crating of
household goods which were subsequently picked up
by interstate commercial haulers. The individuals
themselves made the shipping arrangements with the
interstate carriers; the carriers received the goods
from the Employer. The issue is whether this
$10,000 is also to be included with the revenues
derived from the Employer's services performed as
an essential link in interstate commerce.
When applying a standard to a particular set of
transactions, both the purpose of the standard and
the substance of the transactions should be
considered. The purpose of the link-in-commerce
standard is to exercise jurisdiction over enterprises.
"which exert, or tend to exert, a pronounced impact
on commerce."' Thus, the impact on commerce is
crucial to the determination of whether to include
the $10,000 in question.
In the instant case what happened to the goods,
not who paid for the services, measures the impact
on commerce. The goods moved from the Employer'
directly to interstate carriers. Thus, they were
destined for interstate commerce, and as the
Employer's packing and crating them was necessary
for their shipment, the Employer's services were
directly related to the interstate movement of goods.
Had the Employer dealt directly with the carriers
and been paid by them, the amount in question
would clearly be included under the H P 0 Service
link-in-commerce standard. Whether the Employer
dealt with the individuals or with the carriers, the
impact on commerce is identical. In either case the
Employer performed essential services on goods
destined for interstate commerce.
Accordingly, we find that the $10,000 derived
from services to individuals on goods destined for
interstate shipment, together with the $45,000 set
forth above, should be included in computing the
jurisdictional amount. Since the Employer derives
over $50,000 from services performed as a link in
commerce, it would effectuate the purposes of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the stipulation of the
parties, we find that the following employees of the
'II P 0 Service, Inc., supra, 396.
175 NLRB No. 129
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining:
All warehousemen, drivers and helpers; excluding
all office clericals, salesmen, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election' omitted from publication.]
'An election eligibility list , containing the names and addresses of all the
eligible voters , must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director
for Region 27 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction
of Election . The Regional Director shall make the fist available to all
parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be granted
by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to
comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed . Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB
1236.