Penn Coal Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 251 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of PENN COAL COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER and COAL, ICE,
BUILDING MATERIAL AND SUPPLY DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 716, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN
& HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
Case No. 35-RC-109.-Decided November 10, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer
of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, an Indiana corporation, operates a retail coal dis-
tribution yard at Indianapolis, Indiana. During the 12 months pre-
ceding September 15, 1948, the Employer's purchases of coal and coke
exceeded $150,000. Ten to fifteen percent of the coal purchased was
shipped to the Employer from outside Indiana. Approximately 10
percent of the purchases consisted of coke which was manufactured
in Indianapolis, but was purchased through the Indianapolis office of
a Cincinnati, Ohio, broker. The balance of the Employer's purchases
consisted of coal mined within Indiana.'
The Employer also purchases, for use in its business, trucks, tires,
gasoline, and oil. All such purchases are made locally. The trucks
and tires are nationally known makes.
During the same period, the Employer's sales of coal and coke ex-
ceeded $200,000; all such sales were made to purchasers located within
Indiana. Approximately 15 percent of the Employer's sales was made
to the Indianapolis plant of a manufacturer engaged in interstate com-
1 The records of the Board show that the Board has asserted jurisdiction over 5 of the
11 concerns cited at the hearing as selling coal and coke to the Employer.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 48.
251
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
merce within the meaning of the Act, for use in heating said plant.
The balance of the Employer's sales was made to the Indianapolis
school system, and to local residents for home consumption.
The Employer contends that it is not engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act. Without resolving that issue, we do not
believe that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction in this case, because of the essentially local nature of the
Employer's operations. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MEMBERS HousTON and MURDOCK took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.