Lamco Electric

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 191 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter, of LEROY M. LAMB, GEORGIA E . -LAMB A ND CHESTER N.
COPPIN, A PARTNERSHIP D/B/A LAMCO ELECTRIC ,1 EMPLOYER and
CHAUFFEURS , TEAMSTERS & HELPERS, LOCAL 150 , INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELP-
ERS OF AMERICA , AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 20-RCT1093.Decided November 22, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition -duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Nathan R. Berke,
hearing officer. , The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer, a California partnership, is engaged in the busi-
ness of repairing and servicing electrical appliances and equipment.
The Employer has a franchise for the service of factory warranties
on approximately 29 nationally advertised electrical appliances; ap-
proximately 20 of these franchises are on an exclusive basis covering
the northern part of California.
During the year 1949, the Employer purchased spare parts and
equipment for use in connection with its repair service, valued in ex-
cess of $12,000, of which approximately 80 percent originated outside
the State of California. During the same period, the Employer's
gross earnings totaled approximately $68,000. Of this amount in
excess of $16,000 represented sales of spare parts, all made within
the State, and approximately $8,500 represented payment for services
performed by the Employer on appliances and equipment pursuant
to its repair franchises? The balance of its income represented pay-
ment for services and parts furnished to individual customers, vir-
tually all of whom are located within the State, after the expiration
of the warranty period.
Although the operations of the Employer affect commerce within
the meaning of the Act, the services furnished by the Employer, neces-
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
6 The record shows in this connection that $500 to $600 was received directly from
manufacturers of appliances for which the Employer is an authorized service, the remainder
being received from dealers who distribute the product for the manufacturer.
92 NLRB Ne. 50.
191
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sary to the effective Operation of other employers over whom the
Board would assert jurisdiction, are not equal to that which the Board
has recently stated to be the minimum requirement for exercising its
discretion to assert jurisdiction on that basis.3 Nor does any other
aspect of the Employer's operations warrant our asserting jurisdic-
tion 4 Accordingly, we find that it would not effectuate the .policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case, and we shall dismiss the.
petition.
ORDER
IT IS•HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby.
is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above,
Decision and Order.
8 See HoZZoao Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635; The D. L. Dineen Sales d Service-
Corporation, 91 NLRB 1222.
4 Cf. Avedis Baxter and Ben Baxter, individually and as co-partners , d/b/a Baxter
Bros., 91 NLRB 1480.