Edelen Transfer and Storage Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1881 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

EDELEN TRANSFER AND STORAGE COMPANY, INC. 1881
Hendrix , and Leona Stephenson, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Re-
spondent offer McGee , Powell , and Barnes immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their senior-
ity and other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them , by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned as
wages from the date of such discrimination to the date of offer of reinstatement, less
her net earnings during such period, the back pay to be computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F . W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289. It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and upon
reasonable request make all pertinent records available to the Board or its agent.
As to Hendrix and Stephenson , it will be recommended that the Respondent make
each of them whole for the loss of pay discriminatorily caused them on September
17, 1953.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed , the commission
by the Respondent of similar and other unfair labor practices may be anticipated.
The remedy should be coextensive with the threat . It will therefore be recommended
that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Aluminum Workers International Union , Local No. 200 , A. F. L., is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of its em-
ployees, thereby discouraging membership in the above -named labor organization,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. 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.]
EDELEN TRANSFER AND STORAGE COMPANY, INC. and CHAUFFEURS,
TEAMSTERS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 621, IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS, AFL.' Case No. 10-CA-1828. December 16,
1954
Decision and Order
Upon a charge filed on October 30, 1953, by the Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region, issued a complaint dated November 4,
1953, against Edelen Transfer and Storage Company, Inc., herein
called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the
charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the
Respondent and the Union.
i Herein called the Union.
110 NLRB No. 230.
1882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged,
in substance, that the Respondent (1) on or about October 27, 1953,
and at all times thereafter, has continuously failed and refused to
bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, although the Union had been certified
as the representative of the employees in such unit on August 19,
1953, and (2) such acts constitute unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
The Respondent filed its answer in which, in substance, it (1) de-
nied the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, (2) denied the
allegation of the complaint with respect to the exclusive representa-
tive status of the Union, and (3) admitted that it refused to bargain
with the Union but denied that such refusal was an unfair labor
practice.
Thereafter, all the parties entered into a stipulation, in which they
stipulated and agreed, in substance, as follows : (1) That the charge
was filed, the complaint and notice of hearing were issued, and the
copies of each of these documents were duly served, as stated above;
(2) that the parties waive any hearing, the issuance of any Inter-
mediate Report, the taking or submission of any further evidence,
and any oral argument or other procedure before the Board except
for the filing of briefs; (3) that the Board may decide the case upon
the basis of the stipulation and the entire record contained therein;
(4) that the stipulation and various documents referred to therein
shall constitute the entire record in the case; (5) that on August 27,
1953, the Union was certified by the Board as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit; and
(6) that on October 27, 1953, after several bargaining conferences
with the Union, the Respondent declined to negotiate further with the
Union. The stipulation also contained various recitals as to the ex-
tent of the Respondent's intrastate and interstate operations, which
are discussed in detail below.
Thereafter, on March 31, 1954, the Board approved the stipulation
and made it a part of the record herein, and transferred the case to
the Board for the purpose of making findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the issuance of a decision and order. Thereafter, the Re-
spondent filed a brief.
The Board does not find it necessary to pass upon the merits of
this case, as we shall not assert jurisdiction for the following reasons:
The Respondent is a corporation duly organized under and exist-
ing by virtue of the laws of the State of Virginia, having its principal
office and place of business at Knoxville, Tennessee, where it is, and
has been continuously, engaged in the storage and transfer of house-
hold goods. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material
EDELEN TRANSFER AND STORAGE COMPANY, INC. 1883
herein, an agent of Allied Van Lines, Inc., a company engaged in the
interstate transfer of household goods.
The Respondent, during the year ending March 22, 1954, purchased
materials valued at $23,571, of which $7,695, in value, was purchased
from points outside the State of Tennessee, and, during the same pe-
riod, the Respondent rendered services valued at $117,952, of which
$40,520 was received for services rendered to customers outside the
State of Tennessee, as agent for Allied Van Lines, Inc., for transport-
ing household goods to customers outside the State of Tennessee. The
Respondent employs two drivers who perform services for Allied Van
Lines, Inc., throughout the United States.
The Board decided, in Breeding Transfer Company, 110 NLRB 493,
that jurisdiction will be asserted over a wholly intrastate hauling firm
if its annual business with interstate carriers (i. e., its interlining op-
erations) amounts to at least $100,000. We shall also, in the future,
assert jurisdiction in cases involving transportation companies that
operate both intrastate and interstate when the transportation com-
pany derives $100,000 or more revenue from the interstate portion of
its operations, or when the combined total of the revenue derived from
the interstate portion of its operations and from the intrastate portion
of its operations that consists of interlining is $100,000 or more.
The Respondent in the instant case, so far as the present record dis-
closes, fails to meet any of the foregoing ipinimum requirements.2 Ac-
cordingly, we find that it would not effectuate the purposes of the Act
to assert jurisdiction in this case and we shall dismiss the complaint.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and PETERSON, dissenting :
The majority opinion dismisses the instant petition on the ground
that the Respondent's operations do not meet the newly created, mul-
tiple and complex standards for the assertion of jurisdiction over'
transportation firms. We have discussed those standards and their
inherent defects in our separate opinions in other cases.' We shall
not, accordingly, repeat those objections herein. However, in the in-
stant case, the majority state, for the first time in decisional form, that
the Board will not permit the "indirect outflow" standard contained
in Jonesboro Grain Drying Corportion, 110 NLRB 481, to be applied
to the transportation industry. In other words, services rendered by
a trucking firm to other enterprises engaged in interstate commerce
(except by interlining with other transit facilities) will not be
weighed in determining whether or not the Board will assert juris-
9 The jurisdictional standards in Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481,
are not applicable to the transportation industry.
3 See our separate and dissenting opinions in Breeding Transfer Company, 110 NLRB
493;,Green-wvh Gas Company, 110 NLRB 564 ; and Rollo Transit Corp., 110 NLRB 1623.
1884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
diction. No explanation appears for this exclusion of transportation
firms from the "indirect outflow" standard and, indeed, we can find
no logical reason for its adoption. Why should stricter standards be
applied to enterprises so inherently interstate in character as the
transportation industry than to firms whose impact on commerce is
less direct? A nontransportation firm which furnishes goods or serv-
ices to other enterprises engaged in interstate commerce will, if those
goods or services meet the minimal amounts required under Jonesboro
be subject to our jurisdiction. Thus a company will be within our
jurisdiction if it sells materials valued at $100,000 to a second com-
pany in the same State which then sells products valued at more than
$50,000 outside the State. But the trucking firm which transports
these goods to the second firm will not come within our jurisdiction
even if its total services to that firm amount to many times $100,000.
Or, a firm which provides services not "directly utilized in the proc-
esses, services, or processes of such enterprises" will be subject to the
Act if those services are not transportation and are valued at more
than $200,000. But, if the service is, in fact, transportation, and is,
as usually the case, vitally necessary to the operation of the customer's
plant, it may amount to $200,000 or $500,000 and still not bring the
trucker within our jurisdiction. We cannot agree that such an exclu-
sion can be justified in fact or in law.
Moreover, aside from the, defects of the standard applied in this
case, we do not agree that sufficient facts are before us to make a juris-
dictional determination under that standard. The majority opinion
apparently takes note only of the $40,520 in value of services rendered
by the Respondent outside the State of Tennessee. But the record
shows that the Respondent's operations within that State amount to
approximately $77,000 in value. Although no breakdown of these
receipts is available in the record (hearing having been held before
the adoption of the new standards), it may be that a sufficient portion
of these receipts come from "link" operations which, according to the
decision herein, if combined with interstate receipts would meet the
$100,000 standard. For this reason, accordingly, we would seek fur-
ther information as to the operations of the Respondent rather than
dismissing the petition forthwith.
SOUTHWEST Mississippi ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION and LOCAL
UNION 605, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL. Case No. 15-CA-4f73. December 16, 1954
Decision and Order
On September 25,1953, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
110 NLRB No. 245.