Edwin C. Barnes and Bros.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1317 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of EDWIN C . BARNES D/B/A EDWIN C. BARNES AND BROS.,
EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DIS-
TRICT No. 9 , PETITIONER
Case No. 14-RC-863.-Decided December 02, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Milton C.
Talent, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, an individual, operates two establishments, one
located in Chicago, Illinois, and the other in St. Louis, Missouri, at
which he is engaged in the business of selling, distributing, and servic-
ing "Ediphone" dictating machines. Each establishment operates
under an exclusive franchise granted by the manufacturer of the ma-
chines, Thomas A. Edison, Inc., West Orange, New Jersey. The Chi-
cago business operates in an area consisting of parts of Iowa, Illinois,
and Indiana. The St. Louis business operates under its franchise in
an area consisting of parts of Missouri and Illinois. The instant pro-
ceeding concerns only the employees of the St. Louis, Missouri, estab-
lishment.
During the calendar year 1948, the St. Louis establishment pur-
chased products consisting principally of "Ediphone" machines, repair
parts, and supplies valued at approximately $85,000, of which approxi-
mately 95 percent was purchased from outside the State of Missouri.
During this same period, the Employer sold products and performed
services valued at approximately $175,000, of which approximately.
10 percent was rendered outside the State of Missouri.
87 NLRB No. 127.
1317
1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the basis of these facts, we find, contrary to the contention of
the Employer, that in the operation of his St. Louis establishment he
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9,
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer at its St. Louis, Mis-
souri) establishment constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the-
Act:
All servicemen engaged in installation, repair, maintenance, and.
service of "Ediphones," excluding clerical employees, watchmen,,
guards, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than.
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were-
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date.
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or-
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or re-
instated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, by International Association of Machinists, District
No. 9.
I Our assertion of jurisdiction is predicated, inter alia, on the fact that the Employer's
sales and service operations out of his St. Louis office covers a two-State area under the
exclusive franchise given him by Thomas A. Edison, Inc. Cf. Coca-Cola Bottling Company
of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 85 NLRB 606, and cases cited therein,