The Davey Tree Expert Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 3, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 1161 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE DAvEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER
and TREE SURGEONS , UTII.ITY LINE CLEARERS & ALLIED WORKERS
LOCAL 236, NATIONAL FARM LABOR UNION, AFL , PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-697.Decided March 3, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board . The hearing officer's
rulings at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer , an Ohio corporation , is engaged in tree surgery
and landscape gardening in 36 States . The instant proceeding con-
cerns employees who, under the supervision of its Branch Sales Office
at Boston , Massachusetts , work in Maine, New Hampshire , and Massa-
chusetts . Of the Employer 's annual income of $4,500,000 ( the figures
given herein are approximate ), the sum of $130,000 is derived from
the operations of its Boston office . The greater part of these opera-
tions center around Boston and represent services to public utility
corporations . Annual material purchases for the Boston office amount
to $7,000, substantially all of which comes from points outside
Massachusetts.
The Employer neither concedes nor denies the Board 's jurisdiction
but requests a ruling on this point.
We frequently refuse to assert jurisdiction over essentially local
operations where the Employer operates wholly within a State, even
though it may bring across State lines substantial amounts of raw
material.' Where, however , an Employer operates on a multi-State
basis, even though its business relates to services locally rendered,
and the amount of material which it brings across State lines may be
relatively small, we believe that the purposes of the Act may be best
1 Matter of Sta-Eleen Bakery, Inc., 78 N . L. R. B 798.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 174.
1161
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
effectuated by asserting jurisdiction, in cases involving either its opera-
tions as a whole or any administrative sector thereof?
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All hourly employees whose work is directed from the Employer's
Boston Sales Office, excluding employees beyond the direction of the
Boston Sales Office, commissioned salesmen, guards, professional em-
ployees, executives, working foremen, and all other supervisors.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and su-
pervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective
bargaining, by Tree Surgeons, Utility Line Clearers & Allied Workers,
Local 236, National Farm Labor Union, AFL.
2 Matter of Orkin Termite Company, Inc., 79 N. L. R B. 935.
Mr. Reynolds , who dissented in the Orkin case, would assert jurisdiction in the instant
proceeding on the ground that the unit sought herein, unlike that in the Orkin case,
involves employees in a tri-State administrative sector of the Employer's multi-State
operations.
Mr. Gray, who likewise dissented in the Orkin case, would assert jurisdiction herein, on
the ground that the Employer's services to electric, telephone and other public utility
corporations clear the lines for the interstate transmission of power and light, which
work the Employer would otherwise be required to perform to prevent service interference.