Milk Co-Op of Cal., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 17, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 672 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR .RELATIONS BOARD
effect disclai.med any desire for an election in any unit other than that
petitioned for
The record establishes that, in 1956, the Association and the Union
executed a contract covering a multiemployer unit encompassing
some, but not all, of the employer-members designated in the instant
petitions In addition, the Union, in 1956 and 1957, signed individual
contracts with certain other of such employer-members 4 The Union
has not, however, at any time been the bargaining representative of
the employees of at least seven of the employer-members designated in
the petition,' and the record fails to establish that the Union has at
any time claimed to represent such employees It appears, rather,
that during the 1959 negotiations for a new contract, the Union ob-
jected to the inclusion in the multiemployer unit of the employees of
any employers not previously the subject of a contract with the
Union, there is, moreover, no evidence that the Union has taken any
action inconsistent with its disclaimer at the hearing, noted above,
with respect to the unit described in the petition
In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record, we find that
the Union does,not claim to represent the employees in the unit de-
scribed in the petition, and that the petition, therefore, does not raise
a question concerning representation, within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 6 Accordingly, as no
party seeks an election in any other unit, we shall dismiss the
petition 4
[The Board dismissed the petition
s Chuck's Steak House, Cline 's Food Shop, Marshall's Inn, the Pioneer Club (then called
Pioneer Tavern), Rialto Coffee Shop, Salem Malt Shop, Brite Spot Cafe ( then called
Brite Spot ), Marion Motor Hotel (then called Marion Hotel), Senator Hotel, and Cross
Coffee Shop ( then called Cross Coffee Cup)
4 China City Cafe , Randall's Chuck Wagon, one of The Pike establishments at 138 S
Liberty St , Salem , Oregon, and The Meadows
5 These include the Cupboard Cafe, Ott's Drive In, the Pan Cake House , Shattuc's
Chateau, The Ranch, Monk's Cafe, and Lone Oak Tavern The Union has also never
been the bargaining representative for two of the three Pike establishments
O 'Wm W Wolf Bakery, Inc 97 NLRB 122, Maelobe Lumber Company of Glen Cove,
et at, 120 NLRB 320
7 We find it unnecessary , therefore to consider the contentions of the parties with,
respect to which of the employer members with , which the, Union has had bargaining
relationships are appropriately a part of the multiemployer unit
I
Milk Co-Op of Cal ., Inc. and Retail Clerks Union , Local 755,
RCIA, AFL-CIO Case No AO-4 February 17, 1960
ADVISORY OPINION
A petition has been filed by Retail Clerks Union, Local 755, RCIA,
AFL-CIO, herein called Local 755, praying for an advisory opinion
126 NLRB No 84
MILK CO-OP OF CAL., INC. 673
by the Board as to whether it would assert jurisdiction over the opera-
tions of Milk Co-Op of Cal ., Inc., a California cooperative corpora-
tion , herein called Milk Co-Op . It appears from the petition that :
1. There is now pending before the Superior Court of the State of
California , a suit numbered 87,439 in which Milk Co-Op is the plain-
tiff and Local 755 is the defendant . In said State court action, Milk
Co-Op seeks to enjoin Local 755's peaceful picketing of certain retail
trade establishments on the alleged ground that the picketing was for
the purpose of forcing Milk Co-Op to enter into collective bargaining
and agreement with Local 755.
2. Milk Co-Op operates at least 5 retail trade outlets in California
and, according to Local 755's information and belief , Milk Co-Op
maintains at least 15 such stores in Northern California and contem-
plates operating several other stores in California . In the State
proceedings , Milk Co-Op has alleged that its business is a large one
and its investment therein is substantial.
3. The petition alleges that the National Labor Relations Board
has assumed jurisdiction over Milk Co-Op in Case No . 20-CA-1730,
a proceeding involving unfair labor practice charges filed by another
union. This Board has been administratively advised that the Re-
gional Director for the Twentieth Region has issued a complaint in
that case on December 31, 1959, alleging that Milk Co-Op had engaged
in certain unfair labor practices in violation of the Act ; and that
subsequently , on January 22,1960, Milk Co-Op signed a formal settle-
ment stipulation containing the statement that the annual gross vol-
ume of its business exceeds $500 ,000 and that material amounts of
products originating from points outside of California have been
purchased for use in the business.
4. No response has been received from Milk Co-Op.
On the basis of the above , the Board is of the opinion that :
1. Milk Co-Op is engaged in a retail enterprise.
2. Milk Co-Op is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, now
known as the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended.
3. Milk Co-Op 's annual gross volume of business exceeds $500,000.
4. The Board's standard for exercising jurisdiction over a retail
enterprise is a minimum gross annual volume of business of $500,000.
Accordingly , the parties are advised, pursuant to Section 102.103
of the Board 's Rules and Regulations , that the Board would assert
jurisdiction over the operations of Milk Co-Op of Cal., Inc., with
554461-60-vol 126-44
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respect to labor disputes cognizable by the Board under Sections 8, 9,
and 10 of the Act. Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88.
MEMBERS RODGERS and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of
the above Advisory Opinion.
Piedmont Shirt Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. A0-6. February 17, 1960
ADVISORY OPINION
A petition and an amended petition have been filed by the Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union, pursuant to Section 102.98 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations praying for an advisory opinion by the Board as to
whether it would assert jurisdiction over the operations of Piedmont
Shirt Company (herein called the employer). It appears from the
said petition and amended petition that:
1. The employer is engaged in Greenville, South Carolina, in the
business of manufacturing men's and boys' shirts. From pits plant in
Greenville the employer sells its products "to retailers all over the
United States." The union alleges "upon information and belief"
that (1) the employer "made direct sales in interstate commerce
exceeding ... $50,000 in the year 1959," and (2) the employer
"neither admits nor denies the commerce data relating to the opera-
tion of its business other than alleging in its original Bill of Com-
plaint [in the State court suit described in paragraph 2 herein] that
it sells its products all over the United States."
2. The employer brought an action against the Union in the county
court for the county of Greenville, South Carolina, on August 5, 1959,
requesting injunctive relief against certain picketing and a boycott
by the Union of Piedmont's "retailers."
3. On or about August 5, 1959, W. B. McGowan, judge of said
Greenville county court, granted the motion of the Union to dismiss
the State court action on the ground that the conduct therein was
preempted by the National Labor Relations Board, citing as his au-
thority San Diego Building Trades Council, et al. v. J. S. Garmon,
et al., 359 U.S. 236. Among other things, Judge McGowan's opinion
mentions that the employer alleged in part that its "shirts for men
and boys ... are distributed and sold throughout the United States."
An appeal has been taken by Piedmont to the Supreme Court of the
State of South Carolina from the order of Judge McGowan granting
the Union's motion to dismiss the action brought by the Employer.
4. On or about December 9, 1959, and subsequent to the taking of
the appeal described in paragraph 3 hereof, the Employer filed an
126 NLRB No. 81.