Keamco, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 652 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of KEAMCO, INC. ( ROYAL THEATRE ) and HAROLD P.
DOUGLAS, JR.
In the Matter of PHILADELPHIA MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS
UNION, LOCAL #307-A, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE
OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE
OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA , AFL and HAROLD P.
DOUGLAS, JR.
Cases Nos. 4-CA-222 and 4-CB-36.-Decided June 30, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 20, 1950, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Order Dismissing Complaint, in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion in this proceeding, and dismissing the consolidated complaint, as
set forth in the copy of the Order Dismissing Complaint attached
hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed a request for review,
pursual}t to Section 20327 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and
supporting brief.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial- error was committed. Except as. noted, the rulings
are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Order Dismis-
I As the request for review was timely filed, the Respondent Union's motion to dismiss,
which asserts that said request'was not timely, is hereby denied. See Section 203.86 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations.
2 On the ground that it was not within the issues as framed by the complaint, the Trial
Examiner excluded certain evidence offered by the General Counsel for the purpose of estab-
lishing the relationship of certain of the stockholders, officers, and directors of the
Respondent Employer to certain other theatres, located in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The General Counsel sought, by means of such evidence, to establish that the Respondent
Employer operated the Royal Theatre as part of an interstate chain of motion picture
theatres. The exclusion of the proffered evidence was error. The complaint did not
specifically allege that the Respondent Employer operated the Royal Theatre as part of an
interstate chain. However, the broad jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, to the
effect that the activities of the Respondent Employer affect commerce, made relevant and
material any evidence relating to the issue of jurisdiction. Although it would have been
better practice, had the General Counsel amended the complaint, as suggested by the Trial
Examiner, to allege specifically that the Royal Theatre was operated as part of an inter-
state chain, once the jurisdiction issue has been raised, any evidence relevant to that issue
is admissible. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner's rulings excluding such evidence are
hereby reversed.
We. have, therefore, considered the General Counsel's offer of proof with respect to such
evidence. Assuming, for the purposes of this proceeding, the General Counsel's ability to
90 NLRB No.. 110.
652
KEAAICO, INC. 653
sing Co1Iplaint, the General Counsel's. request for review and sup-
porting brief, and the entire record in the case.3 We find that the
Respondent Employer's operations at the Royal Theatre, which are
fully described in the Trial Examiner's Order, affect commerce within
the meaning of the Act. However, because such operations are essen-
tially locd in character, We find that it Would not effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. Accordingly, we