Fred L. Roberts

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1005 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

i
FRED L. ROBERTS 1005
9. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, 318 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
10. By causing Potashnick to discriminate in regard to hire and tenure of em-
ployment and terms and conditions of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act, the Committee has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
11. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Fred L . Roberts and Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union
No. 350 and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 26. Case
No. X10-98. December 5, 1961
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed on November 13, 1961, 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 Regulations, Series 8, requesting an advisory
opinion as to whether it would assert jurisdiction over the operations
of Fred L. Roberts, herein called the Employer. Said petition alleges
in substance that :
1. Petitioners are defendants in a suit brought against them by
the. Employer in the First Judicial District Court of the State of
Nevada, in and for the County of Ormsby, Docket No. 22720. In
such suit, the Employer seeks injunctive relief and damages for pick-
eting by the Petitioners. Although the issue before the court with
respect to a preliminary injunction has become moot, the issue of
damages has been set for trial on December 14, 1961.
2. Since April 1960, the Employer has been engaged in Carson City,
Nevada, as a subcontractor in the plumbing, heating, and air-condi-
tioning business. Prior to that time, he was engaged at Fresno, Cali-
fornia, in a similar business.
3. The petition further alleges that the Employer "represents, and
for the purposes of this petition, Petitioners admit," the accuracy of
the following commerce data :
During the first quarter of 1960, while he was operating in Cali-
fornia, the Employer purchased materials valued at $38,875, approxi-
mately half of which came to him, "directly or indirectly, from out-
side that State." When he removed his business to Nevada, the
Employer took with him and transferred "approximately $T,000 worth
of these materials." During the 8-month period from April through
November 1960, the Employer purchased goods valued in excess of
$47,500, "all of which were either shipped to him directly from outside
the State of Nevada or delivered to him by, Nevada suppliers who, i u
134 NLRB No. 115.
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
turn, received them from outside that State." During that 8-month
period, the Employer sold materials valued at approximately $20,000.
4. Earlier, on December 1, 1960, the Petitioners had filed a petition
for an advisory opinion substantially the same as the petition herein
except that the first petition alleged that only some of the $47,500
worth of purchases came directly and indirectly from outside the
State of Nevada. Based on these facts presented in the earlier peti-
tion, the Board on February 16, 1961, issued an Advisory Opinion 1
in which it determined that the Board would not assert jurisdiction
over the Employer because it was "a matter of surmise as to what
part of the Nevada purchases constitute direct or indirect inflow."
5. No representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving
the same dispute is pending before the Board.
6. No response as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations
has been filed by the Employer,to the present petition.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that :
1. The Employer is engaged as a subcontractor in the nonretail
business of plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning at Carson City,
Nevada.
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.
3. During the 8-month period from April through November 1960,
the Employer made purchases in excess of $47,500 worth of goods all
of which were shipped to him either directly or indirectly from out-
side the State of Nevada. Such purchases constitute direct and in-
direct inflow as those terms are described in Siemons Mailing Service,
122 NLRB 81, 85, and, if projected for a period of 12 months, would
amount to $71,250. In addition, during the calendar year 1960, when
the Employer was still operating in California and when he first
moved into Nevada, he had a computable inflow of about $26,437.50.
Accordingly, the Employer's commerce operations come within the
Board's legal or statutory jurisdiction and meet the Board's current
standard for asserting jurisdiction over a nonretail enterprise. Sie-
mons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81; Sequim Lumber and Supply
Company, 123 NLRB 1097.
Accordingly, the parties are therefore advised, under Section
102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, that, on the
facts here presented, the commerce operations of the Employer are
such that the Board would assert jurisdiction with respect to labor
disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, or 10 of the Act.
1 130 NLRB 392, Case No AO-20.