Creekside Mushrooms, Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1995

316 N.L.R.B. 810 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

810
316 NLRB No. 131
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 A petition was filed with the Board in Case 6–RM–701 on Feb-
ruary 9, 1995. However, the petition was dismissed by the Regional
Director on March 1, 1995.
2 The Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
3 The Board’s Advisory Opinion proceedings under Sec. 102.98(a)
are designed primarily to determine whether an employer’s oper-
ations meet the Board’s ‘‘commerce’’ standards for asserting juris-
diction. Accordingly, the instant Advisory Opinion is not intended
to express any view whether the Board would certify the Union as
representative of the unit under Sec. 9(c) of the Act, or whether the
production and maintenance employees are employees within the
meaning of Sec. 2(3) of the Act, or are agricultural laborers. See
generally Sec. 101.40 of the Board’s Rules.
Creekside Mushrooms, Ltd. and United Steel-
workers of America, AFL–CIO, CLC. Case
AO–319
March 22, 1995
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS COHEN
AND TRUESDALE
Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, on February 3, 1995, Creekside Mushrooms, Ltd.
(the Employer) filed a Petition for Advisory Opinion
as to whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over
its operations. In pertinent part, the petition alleges as
follows:
1. A proceeding, Case PLRA-C-95-1-W, is currently
pending before the Pennsylvania Labor Relations
Board in which the Employer is alleged to have failed
and refused to recognize and bargain with the United
Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO, CLC (the Union)
as exclusive collective-bargaining representative for a
unit of the Employer’s production and maintenance
employees.
2. The Employer is engaged in growing, harvesting,
packaging, and nonretail sale of mushrooms from its
sole place of business located at One Moonlight Drive,
Worthington, Pennsylvania.
3. During the first 6 months of operations, from July
1 to December 31, 1994, Creekside had a gross vol-
ume of business of approximately $5.7 million. It is
estimated that, on an annual basis, it will ship approxi-
mately $12 million worth of mushrooms directly to
points located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania. During the first 6 months of business, Creekside
received goods and materials valued at approximately
$700,000 directly from points located outside the Com-
monwealth of Pennsylvania for use at its operations at
Worthington, Pennsylvania. It is estimated that, on an
annual basis, Creekside will receive goods and mate-
rials valued at approximately $1.5 million directly
from points located outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for use at its Worthington, Pennsylvania
operations.
4. The Employer is unaware whether the Union ad-
mits or denies the aforesaid commerce data, and the
Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board has made no find-
ings of fact or conclusions regarding this commerce
data.
5. There are no representation or unfair labor prac-
tice proceedings involving the Employer pending be-
fore the Board.1
All parties were served with a copy of the Petition
for Advisory Opinion. On March 6, 1995, the Union
filed a brief in which it contends that the production
and maintenance employees are agricultural laborers
within the meaning of the Act. On March 6, 1995, the
Employer filed a response indicating that its position
is adequately set forth in the petition.
Having duly considered the matter,2 the Board is of
the opinion that it would assert jurisdiction over the
Employer. The Employer projects that it will annually
ship approximately $12 million worth of mushrooms
directly to points located outside the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and will receive goods and materials
valued at approximately $1.5 million directly from
points located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania for use at its Worthington, Pennsylvania oper-
ations. The Employer thereby meets the commerce
standard for nonretail enterprises. Siemons Mailing
Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1959).
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based on
the foregoing allegations and assumptions, the Board
would assert jurisdiction over the Employer.3