J. Tom Moore & Sons, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1663 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

J. TOM MOORE & SONS, INC. 1663
ers' International took additional steps in this direction as well. The
Board there held, however, that Lathers' International, by retaining
its membership in Building Trades Department, AFL-CIO, "con-
tinued to subject itself and its locals to all constitutional requirements
of Department membership, including the requirement that it recog-
nize and be bound by the Joint Board agreement which the Depart-
ment executed on behalf of its affiliates." Applied in this case, the
holding in the Cleveland Acoustical case is dispositive of the status
of Local 46 so far as Joint Board procedures are concerned.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude and find that when the charge
herein was filed the parties had agreed upon a method for the volun-
tary adjustment of, the dispute in question. Accordingly, we find
that the Board is without authority to determine the dispute, and we
shall quash the notice of hearing.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.10]
MEMBERS BEAN and FANNING took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing.
10 In conformity with the Board 's decision in Acoustical Contractors Association of
Cleveland, supra , the charge herein will not be dismissed but will remain on file in the
Regional Office pending final adjustment of the dispute.
J. Tom Moore & Sons, Inc. and Talbot Lodge No. 61 , Interna-
tional Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 32-RC-958. February 19, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Caso March, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
On December 9, 1957, the Board by notice to show cause directed
the Employer to show cause in writing why the Board should not
assert jurisdiction over the operations of the Employer based on
information as to the Employer's commerce as set forth in the
appendix attached to said notice. Thereafter, the Employer duly
filed an answer to the said notice to show cause in which it objected
to the assertion of jurisdiction on the grounds hereinafter discussed.
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a Tennessee corporation engaged at Memphis,
Tennessee, in the manufacture, sale, and repair of armored trucks
and other types of truck bodies. It was stipulated at the hearing that,
during the 12 months next preceding the date of the hearing, the
119 NLRB No. 209.
1664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer's total sales of goods and services amounted to $300,000,
of which amount approximately 70 percent represented sales to cus-
tomers located outside the State of Tennessee, but delivered at the
Employer's plant in Memphis. It was further stipulated that during
the same 12-month period, the Employer purchased in Memphis mate-
rials and supplies amounting to approximately $200,000, of which
amount about 95 percent came from points outside the State of
Tennessee.
In addition to the foregoing stipulations, the evidence before
the Board establishes that of the Employer's total sales during the
aforesaid period, approximately $76,000 were to concerns engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Board's jurisdictional standards,'
approximately $20,000 were sales to 4 Federal Reserve Banks, and
about $8,000 represented Federal excise and State sales taxes collected
by the Employer on such sales.
The Employer denies that it is engaged in interstate commerce.
It contends that neither the taxes nor the sales to the Federal Reserve
Banks should be included in computing the amount of its indirect
outflow. We find no merit in this contention. The Board customarily
includes such taxes in determining an employer's gross volume of
business 2 As for the sales to the Federal Reserve Banks, it is
clear that the banks are in effect economic and monetary instrumen-
talities of commerce and that their interstate operations in that respect
are very large. In the circumstances, we find that the Employer's
transactions with the Federal Reserve Banks affect commerce within
the meaning of the Act.3 We also find that in view of the fact
that the total amount of the Employer's indirect outflow exceeded
$100,000, it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
over the Employer's operations.4
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent the employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties having stipulated to the appropriateness of the unit,
we find upon the basis of such stipulation that the following employees
of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
I See Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481 ; Whippany Motor Co., Inc.,
115 NLRB 52.
3 Edmund R. Walker, at al ., d/b/a Pacific Fine Arts , et al., 116 NLRB 1607 ; V. Paturzo,
Bro. & Son, Inc ., 114 NLRB 1161.
3 Cf. G. C. McBride Company, 110 NLRB 1255; Madison County Construction Co., 115
NLRB 701 ; White's Uvalde Mines , 117 NLRB 1128, 1137, 1138. See also Highway
Services , Inc., et at ., 110 NLRB 554.
4 Member Jenkins, although agreeing with the. decision to assert jurisdiction , is not in
agreement with the basis relied on and would assert jurisdiction upon the basis set'forth
in his dissent in Chicago Metropolitan Mutual Assurance Company , 119 NLRB 352.
SOUTHEASTERN ILLINOIS GAS CO. 1665
Act : all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Memphis, Tennessee, plant, excluding office clerical employees, pro-
fessional and technical employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors,
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and FANNING took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
Southeastern Illinois Gas Co. Division of United Cities Gas Co.
and Metrogas , Inc. and United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, Local 551, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 14-RC-3242 and 14-RC-3257. February 19, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
On November 25, 1957, the Board issued its Decision and Direction
of Election herein,' placing only the Petitioner on the ballot.2 The
Petitioner had petitioned only for the Employer's service employees,,
but upon the request of the Employer, and in accordance with Board
policy, the Board included construction employees or laborers in an
"all physical" employees unit.
On December 13, 1957, International Hod Carriers', Building and
Common Laborers' Union of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Hod Carriers, requested a place on the ballot in the election which
was scheduled for December 17, 1957, requested a postponement of
the election to give the employees notice of its intervention, and in
support thereof submitted a showing of interest in the form of author-
ization and membership cards to support its requested intervention.
However, pending an investigation of the Hod Carriers' showing of
interest and the compliance status of its interested locals, the sched-
uled election was held as scheduled and the ballots were impounded.
It now appears that: (1)- Some of the construction employees or
laborers are members of 3 Hod Carriers' locals; (2) the Hod Carriers
was not aware of this proceeding prior to December 13, 1957, but as
soon as it did become aware of this proceeding and the inclusion in the
unit of the construction employees or laborers it filed its. request for
intervention and submitted its showing of interest; (3) its showing
of interest is timely and adequate to support its requested interven-
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
The Petitioner was then the only labor organization involved in this proceeding.
119 NLRB No. 206.
476321-58-vol. 119-106