Fred L. Roberts

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 16, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 392 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The Employer has no objections to the assertion of jurisdiction
by the National Labor Relations Board.
C. On the basis above, the Board is of the opinion that:
1. The Employer, operating a radio station ; is engaged in the busi-
ness of commercial radio programing and transmission.
2. The Employer's gross volume of business was $75,517.07 for the
fiscal year ending August 29, 1959, and was $85,387.94 for the fiscal
year ending August 27, 1960. If the Board were to project for a year
the figure of $26,698.25 for the 15-week period between August 27 to
December 10, 1960, the gross volume of business would be $92,553.93.
3. The Board's standard for exercising jurisdiction over enterprises
engaged in the operation of radio stations is a minimum gross volume
of business of $100,000 per annum. Raritan Valley Broadcasting
Company, Inc., 122 NLRB 90.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, pursuant to Section 102.103
of the Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, that :
The Board would not assert jurisdiction herein because the facts
submitted do not establish that the Employer's operations meet the
Board's standard for asserting jurisdiction over radio stations.
Fred L . Roberts and Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union
No. 350 and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 26. Case
No. AO-f20. February 16, 1961
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed by Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union
No. 350 and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 26, herein jointly
called Petitioners, under the Board's applicable Rules and Regula-
tions, requesting an advisory opinion as to whether it would assert
jurisdiction over the operations of Fred L. Roberts. Said petition
alleges in substance that :
1. Petitioners are defendants in a suit brought against them by said
Roberts in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada.
Said case is docketed as Case. No. 22720 in said court. (The nature of
said suit is not given.)
2. Said Roberts, since April 1960, has been engaged in'Carson City,
Nevada, as a subcontractor in the plumbing, heating, and air-
conditioning business. Prior to that time he was engaged at Fresno,
California, in a similar business.
3. During the first quarter of 1960, while he was operating in Cali-
fornia, Roberts purchased materials valued at $38,875, approximately
half of which came to him "directly or indirectly from outside that
State." When he removed his business to Nevada, Roberts took with
him and transferred approximately "$7,000 worth of these materials"
130 NLRB No. 40.
FRED L . ROBERTS 393
During the 8-month period from April through November 1960, Rob-
erts purchased goods valued in excess of $47,500, "some of which
were shipped directly from outside the State of Nevada, and some of
which were delivered to him by Nevada suppliers who, in turn, re-
ceived them from outside that State." During that 8-month period
Roberts sold materials valued at approximately $20,000.
4. The petition further alleges that one "Mr. Nelson represents, and
for purposes of this petition Petitioners admit," the overments in the
above paragraphs numbered 1, 2, and 3.
No response as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations has
been filed by Roberts.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that :
1. Roberts is engaged as a subcontractor in the business of plumb-
ing, heating, and air-conditioning. His Nevada payments for ma-
terials, projected for 9 months at $5,937.50 per month, would amount
to $71,250, which, added to his California payments of $38,875, would
total $110,125 for the calendar year 1960. Nevertheless, it is conjec-
tural as to what percentage of his total purchases represents direct or
indirect inflow as those terms are described in Siemons Mailing Serv-
ice, 122 NLRB 81,'85. Although it appears that half of the California
purchases, or about $19,437.50, constitute direct or indirect inflow,
nevertheless it is a matter of surmise as to what part of the Nevada
purchases constitute direct or indirect inflow. No outflow is dis-
cernible.
2. 'Current Board standards relating to nonretail enterprises which
fall within its statutory jurisdiction require an annual minimum of
$50,000 inflow or outflow, direct or indirect. Siemons Mailing Service,
122 NLRB 81; Frank Schafer, Inc., 127 NLRB 210; Midwest Piping
Co., Inc., et al., 127 NLRB 408.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, pursuant to Section 102.103
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, as follows:
1. Although Fred L. Roberts is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, the Board would not
assert jurisdiction over him on the facts submitted because they fail
to show direct or indirect outflow or inflow of at least $50,000 in any
given year. See Frank Schafer, Inc., 127 NLRB 210; James D. Jack-
son, d/b/a Jackson's Party Service, 126 NLRB 875. On the facts
before it the Board is unable to conclude that Roberts has any outflow
at all and that his computable inflow amounts to no more than
$26,437.50. Mere allegations that Roberts has "some" purchases
"shipped to him directly from outside the State of Nevada" and
"some . . . which were delivered to him by Nevada suppliers who, in
turn, received them from outside that State" are inadequate to estab-
lish inflow. See Frank Schafer, Inc., supra. Cf. James D. Jackson,
d/b/a Jackson's Party Service, supra. Hence the Nevada operations
of Roberts have not contributed to his ascertainable inflow.