85 N.L.R.B. 160 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

Gibson Paint Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 13, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 160 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of Ross C. GIBSON AND DONALD M. GIBSON D3B/A GIBSON PAINT COMPANY, EMPLOYER AND PETITIONER and PAINT MAHERs UNION, LOCAL 1101 OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS , DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS , AFL, UNION Case No. 0O-RM-36.Decided July 13,1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Clayton 0. Rost, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER . The Employer and Petitioner, Ross C. Gibson and Donald M. Gibson, are partners, doing business in Oakland, California, as Gib- son Paint Company. They are engaged in the manufacture of paints and the retail sale of paints and painter's supplies. The Employer's plant covers a total area of approximately 11,000 square feet, of which :approximately 9,000 square feet is used for manufacturing operations, and the remaining 2,000 square feet for its retail business. In 1948, the Employer purchased raw materials valued at approxi- mately $62,600, of which approximately 33 percent was produced outside the State of California.' During the same period, the Em- ployer's sales were in excess of $100,000, of which approximately 3 1 It appears from the record that substantially all of such purchases were shipped to the :Employer from the suppliers ' local warehouses. 85 N. L. R. B., No. 29. 160 GIBSON PAINT COMPANY 161 percent was made to customers located outside the State of California, approximately 10 percent to local painters and contractors, and the remainder to off-the-street customers of the Employer's retail store. The Employer asserts that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. The Union, however, contends that the operations of the Employer do not affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. Although we do not find that the Employer's operations are unrelated to commerce, we believe that these operations are essentially local in character, and that their effect on interstate commerce is so remote that to assert jurisdiction in this case would not effectuate the policies of the Act 2 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 Matter of Tower Tool and Die Co ., 85 N. L. R. B. 127 ; Matter of Screw Machine Products Co., 85 N. L. R. B . 129; Matter of Bailey Slipper Shop, Inc., 84 N. L. R. B. 341 ; Matter of Eberhart-Conway Company, 84 N. L. R. B. 24; Matter of S. D. Bell Dental Mfg . Co., Inc., 84 N. L. R. B. 23 ; Matter of Monroe Moody Martin , and Wesley Matthew Martin, d/b/a Martin Brothers, 84 N. L . R. B. 21 ; Matter of Ray-Lyon Co ., Inc., 83 N. L. R. B. 487.