R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 25, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 933 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

R. C. WILLIAMS & COMPANY, INC. 933
more accurate in its appraisal of the effect of such a strike on
the national defense effort.
The value of the services performed by the Employer in the
construction of the airport administration building are $9,000.
During the same period, the Employer also sold supplies
valued at $1,220 to the United States Air Force. The Board has
asserted jurisdiction under the national defense section of its
jurisdictional plan over employers who have rendered far less
services in connection with the national defense effort.' I have
fully set forth my views on the liberal approach to the assertion
of jurisdiction in the application of the national defense con-
cept of the plan in my dissent in Taichert's, Inc.," and I shall
not repeat them here. I doubt our competency to pass on the
necessity or importance to the national defense of the Air
Force's action in contracting for the use of the airport. To
the untrained and uninformed observer elements of our national
defense system considered in isolation may appear to be not
strictly necessary or "substantial." If those upon whom the
responsibility rests have determined that element to be a neces-
sary part of the total defense system, I would accept their
judgment as controlling.
On the basis of the above considerations Iwould find that the
Employer's operations sufficiently affect interstate commerce
and the Nation's defense effort to warrant the Board' s assertion
of jurisdiction in this matter.
9Clyde M. Furr, 98 NLRB 1288. Furr had a $1,740 subcontract to do caulking on 3 dor-
mitories and a fire station being erected at one end of an airport where the principal con-
tract in the amount of $305,000 was with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
10107 NLRB 779.
R. C. WILLIAMS& COMPANY, INC. and RETAIL CLERKS IN-
TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, Petitioner . Case No.
2-RC-6240. January 25, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John J. Carmody,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
employees of the Employer.'
'Office Employees International Union, Local 153, AFL, was permitted to intervene at the
hearing. Although served with notice of hearing American Federation of Office Employees
Local 20940 did not appear or intervene.
107 NLRB No. 195.
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for
the following reasons:
American Federation of Office Employees Local 20940, a
Federal labor union chartered by the American Federation of
Labor, was the bargaining representative of the Employer's
office clerical employees for a number of years. The last
collective - bargaining agreement was executed on May 13, 1953,
for a term ending May 13, 1955. The Intervenor contends that
it is the successor to Local 20940 and to that union's agree-
ment with the Employer which bars this proceeding. The
Petitioner agrees that this contract is valid and subsisting but
challenges the- Intervenor ' s successorship . It therefore urges
that an election be held to determine which organization should
administer the contract . The Employer takes no position,
although it concedes that it currently recognizes the Inter-
venor as the successor and administrator of this contract.
The relevant facts concerning the Intervenor ' s successorship
are briefly these : Because Local 20940 was delinquent in the
payment of its dues, the American Federation of Labor, on
August 26, 1953, suspended this organization and lifted its
charter. At the same time , the American Federation of Labor
suggested to Local 20940 that it affiliate with the Intervenor
which was financially secure and had common interests.
After Local 20940's president refused to call a meeting to
consider this p r o p o s a l , Michael J. Ponti, its secretary-
treasurer , notified the membership of Local 20940's sus-
pension and called a meeting to decide their future action.
On September 2, 1953 , such a meeting was held, which was
attended by some 200 out of a total membership of 600. Fol-
lowing a discussion of Local 20940' s suspension and an
explanation by representatives of the Intervenor of the nature
and principles of that organization , a resolution was unani-
mously adopted to affiliate with the Intervenor and to assign
all Local 20940 assets and contracts to it. The next day the
Intervenor sent notices to all employers with whom Local
20940 had contracts, including the Employer herein, advising
them of the membership action taken at the September 2
meeting. Two weeks later , at a meeting limited to the Em-
ployer's employees , which was attended by about 45 out of 60
employees in the unit, it was unanimously voted to ratify the
affiliation with the Intervenor and the assignment of their con-
tract to it . Since that time the Employer has recognized and
dealt with the Intervenor on the basis of this contract.
In view of the foregoing , we find that the Intervenor is the
successor to Local 20940 and its contract whichthe Intervenor
is currently administering .2 As the Petitioner is simply a
2Contrary to the Petitioner 's contention, we are not concerned in representation proceed-
ings whether membership meetings are called in conformity with a union 's constitutional
IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS ET ALS. 935
rival union seeking to oust an incumbent union, we find that the
contract bars this proceeding.3 Accordingly, we will dismiss
the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
requirements or whether the assignment of contracts or assets are proper. Cf. Radionic
Products Division, 91 NLRB 595.
3Cf. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, 106 NLRB 237.
C. B. SOUTH, ET ALS. d/b/a IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY
CLEANERS ET ALS. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OP-
ERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 826, Petitioner. Case No.
16-RC-1363. January 25, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Under a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William H.
Renkel , Jr., hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss this pro-
ceeding on the ground that it is not engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act. This motion, which was referred to the
Board, is granted for the following reasons:
The Employer operates 2 steam laundries in the city of Big
Spring , Texas, which is located some 3 miles from a United
States Air Force base.' During the past year, the Employer's
gross sales amounted to $ 278,000, substantially all of which
appears to have been local business . During the same year,
the Employer purchased materials amounting to some $ 35,000,
of which $ 800 in materials and $10,300 in machinery were
shipped to the Employer directly from outside the State of
Texas. The Employer performs insigni ficant services of
minor value for the Cabot Carbon Co., the Cosden Petroleum
Corporation, and the Texas and Pacific Railroad Company, which
concerns are engaged in interstate commerce.
The Employer has 2 contracts with the Air Force base. Of
these , 1 is in the form of a concession to offer laundry services
to individuals residing on or connected with the base. The other
is for service to the base hospital. For the purpose of the con-
cession, the Employer is permitted the use of a room in 1 of the
buildings on the base, for which it pays 10 percent of the gross
revenue in lieu of rent . The revenue from this concession
1 The evidence shows there is no other steam laundry closer than 40 miles from the Air
Force base.
107 NLRB No. 186.