Midwest Piping Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 408 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent began revamping its operational and personnel procedures in 1958,
long before any suggestion of organizational activities , and revision of application
forms was merely one of a series of recommendations made to it by a firm of cost
accountants in such connection . In August 1958 Respondent purchased the forms
containing the disputed item; the parties agree that this particular form is in standard
commercial use. Respondent distributed the new form among its clerical staff in or
about August 1958, and did not get around to the other employees until January 16,
as already indicated.
Contentions and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that Joy's speech constituted unlawful inducement
to withdraw from the Union and that the mentioned item on the application form
constituted unlawful interrogation concerning union membership ; the General
Counsel further asserts, in effect, that the unlawful consequence of both incidents is
heightened by their chronological relationship . Devoid, as this case is, of any
coercion or promissory benefit or even the suggestion thereof which might result
from employees ' union membership or their failure to withdraw from such mem-
bership , and absent a showing as I also find , that employees were required to disclose
their union membership , I am unable to sustain the allegations of unfair labor
practices made here. I accordingly conclude that Respondent has not violated
Section 8 ( a)( I) of the Act as alleged.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Midwest Piping Co., Inc. , The Fluor Corp ., and Leslie Miller,
Inc. and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the U.S. and
Canada, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 185 . Case No. AO-7.
April 26, 1960
ADVISORY OPINION
This case is before the Board upon a petition, pursuant to Section
102.98 of its Rules and Regulations, for an advisory opinion as to
whether it would assert jurisdiction "over the matters involved" in a
State court proceeding. That petition was filed by United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (herein called
United), its Local Union No. 185 (herein called Local 185), and
Richard E. Skinner (herein called Skinner), the business representa-
tive of said Local 185. All three collectively are referred to as
petitioners.
A. In substance, said petition alleges the following :
1. One Fred Gossett (herein called Gossett) brought an action
against petitioners in the State District Court for a Judicial District
of Nueces County, Texas, for damages resulting from conduct of
petitioners depriving him "of his right to work at his trade" of pipe-
fitter by discriminatorily refusing to send or refer him to jobs, and
in causing him to be laid off on one job. Gossett complains that Skin-
ner (a) "did not allow him to work on" a so-called Naval Air Station
job and the Lon C. Hill job, and (b) caused him to be laid off from
a job where he was employed by Fluor Corporation.
, 127 NLRB No. 60.
MIDWEST PIPING Co., INC., ETC. 409
2. The Naval Air Station job is being performed in Nueces County,
Texas, by Leslie Miller, Inc., herein called Miller. Said Miller is a
general mechanical contractor incorporated in Texas and is licensed
to do and does business in a number of other States. "For its last two
calendar years" Miller performed work valued in excess of $3,000,000
on Armed Forces bases, pursuant to contracts with the Departments
of the Air Force, Navy, and Army, in Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, Okla-
homa, Washington, Ohio, Michigan, and Wyoming. During the same
period, Miller annually "received in excess of [$500,000] for materials
shipped to points located outside the State of Texas pursuant to
contracts received in excess of $500,000 for services performed in
States other than the State of Texas."
3. The Lon C. Hill job is being performed in Nueces County, Texas,
for Central Power and Light Company, herein called Central. Cen-
tral has a contract with Midwest Piping Company, Inc. (herein called
Midwest), providing that Midwest shall supply services and materials
in excess of $500,000 on the Lon C. Hill job. Midwest, a Missouri
corporation with headquarters there, does business in 35 to 40 States
besides Missouri. During the "past two calendar years," Midwest's
annual volume of business exceeded $25,000,000 "of which several
million dollars of material were shipped across State lines" and it
performed services valued in excess of a million dollars in States
other than Texas and Missouri. Midwest furnished materials for the
Lon C. Hill job valued in excess of $150,000 which were shipped di-
rectly from points outside the State of Texas.
4. Fluor Corporation (herein called Fluor) is a California corpora-
tion engaged in most of the States and, through a subsidiary, in
Canada and England, in engineering and construction. Its gross
annual volume of business for "its last two calendar years" exceeded
$30,000,000. In connection with "the particular job in Nueces County"
from which Gossett claims Skinner caused him to be discharged,
Fluor's "contract was in excess of $2,000,000 of which $800,000 worth
of materials were shipped to the job . . . from points . . . outside
the State of Texas."
5. The "commerce data detailed above was agreed to and stipulated
by" Gossett in the course of proceedings in the District Court.
6. Fluor "concedes the jurisdiction of the Board."
B. No response has been received from Gossett.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that :
1. Miller, Midwest, and Fluor are engaged in various phases of the
construction industry. In addition, Miller is an enterprise whose
operations exert a substantial impact on the national defense.
2. Miller, Midwest, and Fluor, and each of them, are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the National Labor
410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Act, as amended, now known as the Labor-Management
Relations Act, 1947, as amended.
3. The Board's standard for exercising jurisdiction over a nonretail
enterprise is a minimum of $50,000 outflow or inflow, direct or indirect
(Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85; Eau Claire and Vicinity
Building and Construction Trades Council and Robert Bauer, 122,
NLRB 1341, 1343; Frank Schafer, Inc., 127 NLRB 210, Case No.
AO-8) . Its standard for asserting jurisdiction over enterprises whose
operations exert a substantial impact on the national defense is a show-
ing that "the Board has statutory jurisdiction." Ready Mixed Con-
crete & Materials, Inc., 122 NLRB 318, 320. Cf. Mitchell v. Lublin,
358 U.S. 207, 213.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, pursuant to Section 102.103 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations, that the Board would assert juris-
diction over the operations of Miller, Midwest, and Fluor with respect
to labor disputes cognizable by the Board under Sections 8, 9, or 10 of
the Act. The Board expressly does not pass upon the question of
whether the conduct involved is cognizable under said Sections 8, 9,
or 10, and limits its opinion solely to the question of asserting jurisdic-
tion over the operations of the employers mentioned herein.
Air Reduction Company, Incorporated ' and General Drivers,
Warehousemen , and Helpers , Local Union Number 89 , affili-
ated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf -
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Case No. 9-RC-3784. April 26, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Daniel J.
Smitas, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Jenkins and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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.
'The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
127 NLRB No. 53.