Ideal Laundry and Dry Cleaners et als.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 25, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 935 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS ET ALS. 935
rival union seeking to oust an incumbent union, we find that the
contract bars this proceeding.3 Accordingly, we will dismiss
the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
requirements or whether the assignment of contracts or assets are proper. Cf. Radionic
Products Division, 91 NLRB 595.
3Cf. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, 106 NLRB 237.
C. B. SOUTH, ET ALS. d/b/a IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY
CLEANERS ET ALS. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OP-
ERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 826, Petitioner. Case No.
16-RC-1363. January 25, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Under a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William H.
Renkel, Jr ., hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss this pro-
ceeding on the ground that it is not engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act. This motion, which was referred to the
Board, is granted for the following reasons:
The Employer operates 2 steam laundries in the city of Big
Spring, Texas , which is located some 3 miles from a United
States Air Force base.' During the past year, the Employer's
gross sales amounted to $ 278,000, substantially all of which
appears to have been local business . During the same year,
the Employer purchased materials amounting to some $ 35,000,
of which $ 800 in materials and $10,300 in machinery were
shipped to the Employer directly from outside the State of
Texas. The Employer performs insignificant services of
minor value for the Cabot Carbon Co., the Cosden Petroleum
Corporation, and the Texas and Pacific Railroad Company, which
concerns are engaged in interstate commerce.
The Employer has 2 contracts with the Air Force base. Of
these , 1 is in the form of a concession to offer laundry services
to individuals residing on or connected with the base. The other
is for service to the base hospital. For the purpose of the con-
cession, the Employer is permitted the use of a room in 1 of the
buildings on the base, for which it pays 10 percent of the gross
revenue in lieu of rent. The revenue from this concession
1 The evidence shows there is no other steam laundry closer than 40 miles from the Air
Force base.
107 NLRB No. 186.
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amounts to some $17,000 a year, and the estimated revenue
from the hospital contract is between $400 and $500 a month.
We find merit in the Employer's contention that its contracts
with the Air Force base do not substantially affect the national
defense effort. In view of the foregoing, we find that, although
the Employer's operations are not unrelated to commerce, the
policies of the Act would not be effectuated by the assertion of
jurisdiction in this case .2 We shall therefore dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Member Murdock, dissenting:
I dissent from the conclusion of my colleagues that the Em-
ployer's operations do not substantially affect the national
defense effort and hence do not warrant the assertion of juris-
diction. I have fully set forth my views as to the proper
approach to cases involving the national, defense concept in my
dissent in Taichert's Inc., supra, in which my colleagues have
departed from the Board's prior jurisdictional policy in that
field.
The United States Air Force base 3 miles distant apparently
regards the laundry services rendered by this Employer of
sufficient importance to the base to permit the Employer the use
of a room at the base in connection with the transaction of its
business with individuals which amounts to $17,000 a year. In
addition the Employer has a contract for services to the base
hospital amounting to $400-$ 500 per month. It is the only
steam laundry within a distance of 40 miles. It seems a
reasonable inference that an industrial dispute involving a
stoppage of this Employer's laundry operations would create
a serious problem with respect to the base hospital., Could
anything be more indispensable to the sanitary and efficient
operation of a hospital than adequate laundry service? I am
unwilling to take the position that laundry service for hospitals
of the armed services is an unimportant or insubstantial
aspect of the national defense or to speculate as to the extent
to which this hospital might be able to get a timely substitute.
2 See Taichert ' s Inc ., 107 NLRB 779.
BERNARD HAMNER, BURDETTE HAMNER AND WALTER C.
ROBERTS, CO-PARTNERS,1 AND R. D. MCCARTNEY and
UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE WORKERS, LIUNO.
78, CIO, Petitioner
1Hereinafter called Harmer . The names of the Employers appear as amended.
107 NLRB No. 187.