IBEW, Local Union 323, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 387 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

IBEW, LOCAL UNION 323, AFL-CIO 387
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case , I make the following: ,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. General Counsel has failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent
has violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The complaint should be, and is hereby, dismissed in its entirety.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
323, AFL-CIO and William E. Pedlowe, d/b/a Pedlowe Elec-
tric. Case No. AO-81. December 16, 1964 .
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed on September 18, 1964, by International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 323, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Petitioner, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity
with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Thereafter,
on November 16, 1964, the Petitioner filed an affidavit in support of
its petition.
In pertinent part, the petition and affidavit allege as follows :
1. On August 17, 1964, William E. Pedlowe, d/b/a Pedlowe Elec-
tric, herein- called the Employer, W. W. Arnold Construction Co. Inc.,
herein called Arnold, and Netto Construction, Inc., herein called
Netto, filed an amended complaint for injunction against the Peti-
tioner in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida,
in and for St. Lucie County, Florida, docketed as Case No. 8287-E.
The complaint alleges that the Petitioner picketed the Employer. at
two construction jobs in St. Lucie County where Arnold and Netto
were the general contractors and where the Employer was engaged
in performing electrical work. It also alleges that the Petitioner's
picketing constituted "unlawful secondary boycotts," causing the
employees of Arnold and Netto, secondary employers, to stop work.
On August 18, 1964, the State court granted a formal temporary
injunction.
2. The Employer is an electrical contractor in Fort Pierce, Flor-
ida. The Petitioner's attorney alleges, on information and belief,
that during the past 12 months the Employer purchased from local
suppliers electrical material manufactured outside the State of Flor-
ida in the'amount of $89,300, of which $43,800 was for the Arnold
and Netto jobs while the balance of $45,500 was for other jobs in
Fort Pierce, Florida.
150 NLRB No. 13.
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding
involving the same labor dispute pending before the Board.
4. The State court has made no findings of fact as to the aforesaid
commerce data.
5. Although served with a copy of the petition for Advisory Opin-
ion, no response as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations
has been filed by the Employer.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that:
1. The Employer is a nonretail enterprise engaged in the electrical
contracting business in Fort Pierce, Florida.
2. The current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over non-
retail enterprises within the Board's statutory jurisdiction requires
an annual minimum of $50,000 out-of-State inflow or outflow, direct
or indirect. Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85. The
Employer's more than $50,000 local purchases of materials manufac-
tured outside the State of Florida during the past 12 months consti-
tute indirect inflow under the Board's Siemons decision and satisfy
the current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail
enterprises'
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that on the
allegations submitted herein the Board would assert jurisdiction
over the Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cog-
nizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.
IIn view of our determination herein , it has been unnecessary to consider the allega-
tions of indirect inflow of secondary employers to the picketed Arnold project. Cf.
Amoskeag Construction Company (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, APL-
010), 147 NLRB 166.
Women's Bindery Union , Local No . 42, International Brother-
hood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO i and National Publishing
Division , McCall Corporation and Washington Mailers' Union
No. 29 affiliated with the International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO.' Case No. 5-CD-97. December 16, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, following a charge filed by National Publishing Divi-
sion , McCall Corporation , herein called the Employer, alleging that
the Women 's Bindery Union, Local No. 42, International Brother-
hood of Bookbinders , AFL-CIO, herein called the Bindery Women,
had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D ) of the Act. A hearing was held
'Amended to conform to a motion for amendment of the pleadings made at the hearing.
2 Amended as in footnote 1, supra.
150 NLRB No. 34.