Mendenhall Trucking, Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 2, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1276 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mendenhall Trucking , Inc.,' and Truck Drivers and Helpers Local
Union No. 696 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner.
Case No. 17-RC-4666. July 2,1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing for
this and certain related cases 2 was held before Hearing Officer Vincent
M. Helm. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and hereby affirmed. The cases consolidated
for hearing are hereby severed for decisional purposes.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer, a Kansas corporation, was organized in June
1964 for the purpose of transporting mail under contract with the
U.S. Post Office. It assumed the obligations and assets of R. C.
Mendenhall, its present president, who was also engaged in the trans-
portation of mail under the same or similar contracts with the post
office. At the time of the hearing, the Employer had a number of
separate contracts for hauling mail between Wichita and other towns
in Kansas. Its annual revenue, derived entirely from its contract mail
operations, amounted to less than $43,000. The corporation employs
three full-time and one part-time driver exclusively in the transporta-
tion of mail.
R. C. Mendenhall has a personal arrangement with the Wichita
Eagle, a newspaper published in Wichita, for the bulk delivery of its
newspapers along various routes, entirely within the State of Kansas.
Mendenhall does not employ any drivers for this operation, doing it
alone in his individually owned truck. His revenue from this opera-
tion amounts to about $22,000 annually.
The offices of the corporation and of R. C. Mendenhall are located in
Mendenhall's home. He and his wife own 98 percent of the corpora-
tion's stock between them, and the remaining 2 percent is owned by a
bookkeeper, employed by the corporation. R. C. Mendenhall is active
in both the newspaper and mail transportation operations, hiring and
supervising the drivers employed by the corporation, and setting its
labor relations policies. In view of their common ownership and the
control exercised by R. C. Mendenhall over both enterprises, we find
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
'Thomas P . Costello, Case No 17-ItC-4651; Levi and Larry Carver, Case No 17-RC-
4652; Lyndale Taylor, Case No. 17-RC-4653; and Fairbanks & Lawton, Case No.
17-RC-4664
153 NLRB No. 110.
MENDENHALL TRUCKING, INC. 1277
that he and the corporation together constitute a single employer for
jurisdictional purposes .3
Although we consider the transportation of mail under contract with
the post office as an activity affecting commerce even when it is carried
out wholly within a single State, it is nonetheless clear in this case that
the revenue earned by the corporation from its transportation of mail,
amounting to less than $50,000, is insufficient, standing alone, to war-
rant the assertion of jurisdiction under our prevailing standard.
H P 0 Service, Inc., 122 NLRB 394. It is, however, the purport of that
decision that revenues obtained from the intrastate hauling of com-
modities for enterprises directly engaged in interstate commerce or for
enterprises, such as the post office, which are exempted from the Board's
jurisdiction, be considered in determining whether the $50,000 direct
and indirect outflow standard has been met.4
Here, the combined annual revenue of the Employer is in excess of
$50,000, and is derived from furnishing transportation services for the
Wichita Eagle, an enterprise over which the Board would assert juris-
diction because it is directly engaged in interstate commerce,,' and for
the post office, whose operations, though exempt from the coverage of
the Act, clearly affect interstate commerce. As both sources of revenue
constitute indirect outflow, as defined in Siemens Hailing Service, 122
NLRB 81, 85, they may be combined in determining the impact of the
single employer's operations on interstate commerce. Based on the
foregoing, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction here.,
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3 Wilber F. Disney, an. Individual, d/b/a Disney Roofing & Material Co, et al, 145
NLRB 88.
'Kenilworth Delivery Service, Inc ., 140 NLRB 1190, and Siemons Mailing Service, 122
NLRB 81, footnote 12.
c This finding is based on information obtained from the editor and publisher of the
Wichita Eagle and the Wichita Beacon, which are affiliated newspapers The gross vol-
uine of business done by these newspapers during their last fiscal year was in excess of
$200,000 They subscribe to the Associated Press, United Press International , and other
interstate news services , and carry national advertising . See Belleville Employing Print-
ers, 122 NLRB 350 As this information is not part of the record herein , any party
desiring to show the contrary may do so by promptly filing a sufficient offer of proof.
See Krist Grades , et al, 121 NLRB 601, 603, footnote 9.
9 Member Fanning concurs in the assertion of jurisdiction over the Employer flow-
ever , he would find , contrary to his colleagues who rely on minimum standard criteria,
that the transportation of mail substantially affects interstate commerce without regard
to the amount , subject to the normal de menineis test , which the hauler receives for his
services.
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Although the Employer refused to stipulate that the unit
requested by the Petitioner was appropriate, it has not raised any issue
as to specific inclusions or exclusions from the unit as described by the
Petitioner. As of the time of the hearing, Mendenhall Trucking
employed three regular and one relief driver on its mail routes, while
R. C. Mendenhall had no one in his employ who drove his newspaper
route. In view of the common control and ownership of the two Men-
denhall operations, we find that a single unit of drivers employed by
the corporation and by R. C. Mendenhall is appropriate.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of Mendenhall
Trucking, Inc., and of R. C. Mendenhall constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act :
All full-time and regular part-time drivers, excluding office clerical
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Stemun Manufacturing Company, Inc. and District No. 82 of the
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No.
9-CA-3189. July 2,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 23, 1965, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.'. The Board has considered the Trial
' At the hearing the Trial Examiner ruled that a tape recording of a meeting held in
July 1964 between Respondent 's president and certain employees was not admissible in
evidence . We find no merit in Respondent 's exceptions to that ruling and deny Respond-
ent's motion to have the tape admitted. The complaint did not allege, and no finding
has been made, that any unfair labor practice took place at that meeting. See Walton
Manufacturing Company, 124 NLRB 1331 , 1333; California Lingerie Inc., 129 NLRB 912,
.913; and Duro Fittings Company, 130 NLRB 653.
153 NLRB No. 102.