Piedmont Shirt Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 17, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 674 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

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.
ME niiais Ron-Bas and JEN g1NS 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 10298 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 Counci, 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
PIEDMONT SHIRT COMPANY 675
unfair labor charge against the Union with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board at its Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia. Said charge,
which is identified as 10-CC-443, alleged violations of Section
8 (b) (4) (ii) (A) and (B). On or about December 31, 1959, the Acting
Regional Director at said Atlanta Office notified the parties that "be-
cause there is insufficient evidence of violation further proceedings
are not warranted at this time. . . . I am . . . refusing to issue com-
plaint in this matter." On or about January 12, 1960, Piedmont
appealed the action of said Acting Regional Director and by request-
ing a review of the refusal to issue a complaint, said appeal is now
pending before the General Counsel of the Board.
5. The Union alleges that the courts of the State of South Carolina
have made no findings respecting the commerce data other than that
alleged in the Employer's original bill of complaint, that is, that the
Employer's shirts are sold throughout the United States.
6. A letter has been received from William M. Pate, counsel for the
Employer, which appears to be submitted as a response. In said letter
Mr. Pate states that he is "enclosing an affidavit executed by Martin L.
Morrow [the Employer's] president, showing that the company meets
the Board's jurisdictional standards relating to inflow and outflow."
In said affidavit President Martin L. Morrow deposes that the Em-
ployer, among other things, (1) "owns and operates a plant in Green-
ville, South Carolina, where it manufactures garments, particularly
men's shirts"; (2) "within a typical month's period of time the em-
ployer purchases materials valued in excess of $100,000 from points
outside the State of South Carolina"; and (3) "within such typical
period of time" the employer ships products valued in excess of
$100,000 to customers outside the State of South Carolina.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that :
1. Piedmont is engaged in the business of manufacturing men's and
boys' shirts which are sold by it to retailers throughout the United
States.
2. Piedmont 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. The Board's standard for exercising jurisdiction over a manu-
facturer which ships goods in interstate commerce is a minimum of
$50,000 outflow or inflow, direct or indirect. Siemons Mailing Service,
122 NLRB 81.
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 the employer with respect to labor dis-
putes cognizant by the Board under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.
Plains Cooperative Oil Mill, 123 NLRB 1032. See N.L.B.B. v. Habib
Marcus, d/b/a Marcus Bros., 272 F. 2d 253 (C.A. 2).