Bussey-Williams Tire Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1146 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By dominating, assisting, contributing support to, and interfering with the
administration of Taunton Leather Workers Union, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2)
and (1) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Allison
Reed, thereby discouraging membership in Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Bussey-Williams Tire Co., Inc. and General Drivers , Warehouse
men and Helpers, Local Union No. 968, Petitioner. Case No-
39-RC-1299. January 28, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Wilton Waldrop,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel
[Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in the sale and servicing of new and
retread tires in Houston, Texas. In 1957, the Employer purchased
approximately $70,000 worth of tires from the Firestone Tire and
Rubber Company's warehouse at Houston, which receives its tire
stocks from outside the State. During this same year, the Em-
ployer's gross tire sales and services amounted to $184,578.77, of
which $124,484.85 was received from sales to several employers classi-
fied as "commercial" accounts, and approximately $45,000 was re-
ceived from sales to small trucking businesses.
The Employer has moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, con--
tending that it is a retail sales operation and that the Board's retail
standard for asserting jurisdiction should be applied.
In Roland Electrical Company v. Walling, 326 U.S. 657, 674-675,.
the Supreme Court, in considering whether a firm which serviced
and sold electrical equipment to industrial consumers was a "retail"
or "service"' establishment within the intendment of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, examined and set, forth various criteria for dis-
tinguishing between "wholesale" and "retail" operations. In do-
122 NLRB No. 137.
MOrRRISON -KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. 11.47
ing so, the Court noted that retail sales include sales to a pur-
chaser who desires "to satisfy his own personal wants or those of
his family or friends," while wholesale sales constitute "sales of
goods or merchandise `to trading establishments of all kinds, to
institutions, industrial, commercial, and professional users, and
sales to governmental bodies."'
These criteria were adopted by the Board in J. S. Latta d Son,
114 NLRB 1248, for purposes of applying the Board' s jurisdic-
tional standards.' Applying them here, we find that the employer
is a nonretail establishment. As the Employer's inflow of approxi-
mately $70,000 satisfies the new inflow standards for nonretail en-
terprises as set forth in Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81,
the Board finds that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction over the Employer. Accordingly, the Employ-
er's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's tires sales and service establishment at
Houston, Texas, including recapping employees and inside and out-
side service employees, but excluding office clerical employees, guards,
watchmen, professional employees, inside and outside salesmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer does not dispute
the appropriateness of the unit sought. Accordingly, we find that
the aforementioned unit constitutes a unit appropriate for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' In 1949 , which was before the Board's Latta decision issued , a definition of the term
"retail" was added to the Fair Labor Standards Act which, so far as the interpretation
of that statute is concerned , rejected the criteria set forth in Roland Eleotrioai Oom-
pany v. Walling, supra, 63 Stat. 917.
Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. and Denton R. Moore
International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers
Union of America , Local 341, AFL-CIO and Denton R. Moore.
Cases Nos. 19-CA-1405 and 19-CB-460. January $9, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Hearing upon the consolidated complaint herein was held before
Trial Examiner Howard Myers between September 9 and October
31, 1957. On September 13, 1957, at the close of the General Coun-
122 NLRB No. 136.