Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 863 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the MATTER OF PLATTE-CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE , INC.,1 EM-
PLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WomumS,
LOCAL 53, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 17RC-285.Decided May 26,1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a. petition duly filed, a hearing was held before James K.
Sullivan, a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a Missouri corporation with its principal office in
Platte City, Missouri, is a non-profit rural electric cooperative,
financed by the REA, which distributes electricity to its sharehold-
ers, all of whom are located within the State of Missouri. The share-
holders consist of 2,210 small farm users, 33 owners of seasonally
occupied cabins, 73 schools and churches, 18 filling stations, 4 grocery
stores, 3 blacksmith shops, a State highway garage, a State park,
a small coal mine, a small stone quarry, and a radio booster station
owned by the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. None of
these users was shown to be in interstate commerce. The radio sta-
tion operated by the telephone company merely provides a service
for local trucking companies, who desire to maintain contact by
telephone between trucks on the road and their central offices within
a radius of 25 or 100 miles. Purchases of electricity by this user
amount to only $3.25 monthly.
The Employer does not generate any electricity, but purchases all
its power from two private Missouri utility companies which them-
selves produce or purchase almost their entire- output from sources
3 The Employer 's name Is amended to conform to the record.
83 N. L. R. B., No. 130.
863
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within the State. Purchases of electricity by the Employer during
1948 amounted to approximately $39,000. During the same period,
purchases of equipment including trucks, poles, hardware, and elec-
•trical accessories amounted to approximately $165,000, of which the
sum of approximately $90,000 represents the value of goods manu-
factured or purchased outside the State.
Total sales of electricity to all users'in 1948 amounted to'$136,217.12,
of which only $7,262.61 represented sales to non-farm users. The
Employer also sells electric wiring and accessories at retail' to its
shareholders and sells electric appliances such as toasters and stoves
to its employees. Its total retail sales are $210 monthly.
The Employer contends that, as its interstate operations are limited,
it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. While
we do not find that the operations of the Employer are wholly unre-
•lated to commerce, we believe that, as that relationship is remote
and its operations are essentially local in character, the assertion
of jurisdiction in this case would not effectuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MEMBER REYNOLDS , dissenting :
I disagree with my colleagues that the assertion of jurisdiction
over this utility enterprise would not effectuate the policies of the
Act. Unmistakably, all utilities, interrelated as they, are, consti-
tute a most important instrumentality in our system of commerce.
The fact has prompted the Board consistently to assert jurisdiction
over such enterprises.2 Absent a de mvnimm flow of material in
-commerce, I believe that the Board should continue to do so where,
as here, the operations of such enterprises are related to commerce.
Even where the operations of such enterprises may primarily affect
the people of one State, the intervention of the Federal Government
in labor disputes therein may be necessary to prevent injury to utility
enterprises essentially interstate in nature.3 I would therefore pro-
ceed to process the petition in this case.
2 See Matter of Lynchburg Gas Company, 80 N. L . R. B. 1237 ; Matter of Central Loui-
siana Electric Company, Inc., 76 N . L. R. B. 243 ; and Matter of French Broad Electric
Membership Corporation, 75 N. L. R. B. 86 , for recent cases where the Board asserted its
jurisdiction over relatively small utility enterprises.
Cf. Consolidated Edison Co . v. N. L. R . B., 305 U. S. 197 , 219-220.