Pacific Dental Laboratory of San Francisco

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1140 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of MAURICE Y. NICOLE, CECIL E. FLETCHER AND CLAR-
ENCE J. WISEMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS, D/B/A PACIFIC
DENTAL LABORATORY OF SAN FRANCISCO and GEORGE A. WINDRICK,
AN INDIVIDUAL
In the Matter of MAURICE Y. NICOLE, CECIL E. FLETCHER AND CLARENCE
J. WISEMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS, D/B/A PACIFIC
DENTAL LABORATORY OF SAN FRANCISCO and NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
DENTAL TECHNICIANS UNION, LOCAL 24116, AFL
Cases Nos. 0O-CA-352 and 20-CA-366.-Decided October 9d0, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon separate charges filed by George A. Windrick, an individual,
and by Northern California Dental Technicians Union, Local 24116,
AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively the General Counsel
and the Board, by the Regional Director of the Twentieth Region
(San Francisco, California) issued a complaint dated June 13, 1950,
against Maurice Y. Nicole, Cecil E. Fletcher, and Clarence J. Wise-
man, individually and as co-partners, d/b/a Pacific Dental Labora-
tory of San Francisco, San Francisco, California, herein called the
Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and charges were duly
served upon the Respondent.
On July 14, 1950, the Respondent filed its answer to the complaint,
denying that its operations affect commerce within .the meaning of
the Act, and further denying the commission of any of the alleged
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on August 15, 1950, at San
Francisco, California, before Thomas S. Wilson, the Trial Examiner
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and
the Respondent were represented by counsel at the hearing. The
Trial Examiner received in evidence the complaint, answer, and
91 NLRB No. 184.
1140
PACIFIC'' DENTAL LABORATORY OF SAN FRANCISCO 1141
other formal documents in the case, and written and oral stipulations
and documentary evidence concerning the effect of the Respondent's
operations on commerce. The Respondent thereupon moved to dis-
miss the complaint, on the ground that it would not effectuate the
policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this case.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard and to intro-
duce evidence bearing upon the issue of the Board's jurisdiction
over the Respondent's operations. The Trial Examiner received no
evidence as to the merits of the unfair labor practice charges. He
heard oral arguments upon the Respondent's motion to dismiss and
granted the motion.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Union filed requests for
review of the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the complaint, and the
General Counsel filed a, brief in support of his request for review.
The Respondent filed a •brief in support of the Trial Examiner's
ruling.
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 re-
quests for review, the briefs filed, and the entire record in the case,
and makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a copartnership having its principal office and only
place of business in San Francisco, California, is engaged in the manu-
facture of dental restoratory devices, .such as dentures, crowns, inlays,
and bridges, for members of the dental profession and for other
laboratories. During the year 1949 the Respondent's purchase of sup-
plies and materials totaled $42,506, of which $15,761 was received
from points outside the State of California, and $18,110 was received
from points within that State but was out-of-State origin. During
the same period the Respondent's sales totaled $271,613, of which only
$14,212 was shipped to points outside the State of California.
All the Respondent's dentures are manufactured on prescription by
dentists. Under a license agreement with the Austenal Laboratories,
of Chicago, Illinois, the Respondent is privileged, within certain des-
igna.ted areas of California, to use a patented alloy called Vitallium
as one of the raw materials in its products. The agreement also pro-
vides for payment of royalties to Austenal Laboratories for the use
of certain patented processes and techniques in the manufacture of
dental devices.
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While we do not hold that the operations of the Respondent are
wholly unrelated to commerce, we are of the opinion that, as these
operations are essentially local in character,, to assert jurisdiction in
this case would not effectuate the policies of the Act.2 In reaching
this conclusion, we have considered and find without merit the Gen-
eral Counsel's contention that the license and royalty agreement be-
tween the Respondent and Austenal Laboratories in effect makes the
Respondent an integral part of a national enterprise to such an extent
as to cause us to assert jurisdiction on that theory.3 Rather, we view
Austenal Laboratories in this case as only a supplier of raw materials
utilized by the Respondent in the manufacturing operations. Accord-
ingly, we affirm the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the complaint and
deny the General Counsel's request that his ,ailing be reversed.4
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint issued herein against
Maurice Y. Nicole, Cecil E. Fletcher, and Clarence J. Wiseman, indi-
vidually and as co-partners, d/b/a Pacific Dental Laboratory .of San
Francisco, San Francisco, California, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
1 The Respondent ' s imports of raw materials from outside California and its exports
of finished products are not sufficient to remove it from this category of enterprises. See
Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635; Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638;
Dorm's House of Miracles, 91 NLRB 632 ; The Rutledge Paper Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 625.
z Eberhars- Conway Company , 84 NLRB 24, and cases cited therein.
3 Cf. The Borden Company, Southern Division, 91 NLRB 628.
* We also reject the General Counsel ' s further contention that the Board has no dis-
cretionary authority to dismiss a complaint on policy grounds merely because legal
jurisdiction does in fact exist. See Local 905 of Retail Clerks International Association
(AFL) et at. ( H. W. Smith d/b/a A-1 Photo Service ), 83 NLRB 564 , and Waitresses
and Cafeteria Women 's Local No . 305, et at. ( Ilaleston Drug Stores, Inc.), 86 NLRB 1166.