86 N.L.R.B. 537 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

Backart Coal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 13, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 537 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of BACKART COAL CO., EMPLOYER and HIRAM E. SHAVER AND HARRY R. ROCKEFELLER, PETITIONERS and LOCAL No. 406, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUYFEURS , WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, UNION Case No. 7-RD-54.-Decided October 13,1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition for decertification, duly filed, a hearing in this case was held before George A. Sweeney, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Backart Coal Co., the Employer herein, is solely owned and oper- ated by R. E. Backart, with its office and place of business in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Employer is engaged in the retail sale of coal, representing about 92 percent of its business, and the wholesaling of charcoal, which accounts for the remaining 8 percent. During the past 12 months the Employer purchased coal and charcoal amounting to $66,362.96, of which more than 92 percent originated from sources outside the State of Michigan. During this same period the Em- ployer sold more than $100,000 worth of coal and charcoal, all of which was sold to local consumers. The record does not indicate that any of the Employer's sales were made to firms engaged in interstate commerce. The Employer neither admits nor denies that he is engaged in a business which affects interstate commerce. While we believe that the 86 N. L. R. B.. No. 73, 537 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer's business is not entirely unrelated to interstate commerce we are of the opinion that his operations are essentially local in char- acter and that to assert jurisdiction in this case would not effectuate the policies of the Act.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 1 See Matter of The O'Rourke Baking Company, Inc., 79 N. L. R. B. 1456 ; Matter of Wawina Co-op. Society, 79 N. L. R. B. 1243. The Intervenor 's contention that the Employer is a part of a multiple -owner unit would, if established, require that the question of jurisdiction in this case be determined on the basis of considerations other than those noted above. However , we believe that the record fails to support this contention . See Matter of Furniture Firms of Duluth, 81 N. L. It. B. 1318.