Tile Mart

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 886 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Harry Paul Tiner , d/b/a Seago Construction Company, Dallas, Texas, is en-
gaged in and during all times material has been engaged in, commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers,
Local 433, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint , as amended , that Respondent Employer has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act have not been sustained.
4. The allegations of the complaint , as amended, that Respondent Union has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b) (1) (A) and (2 ) of the Act have not been sustained.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended , upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law , and upon the entire record in the case, that the complaint , as amended, be
dismissed in its entirety.
Tile Mart, a New Jersey corporation and George Forbes, Union
Representative , and Floor Covering and Linoleum Workers
Local 1823 . Case No. AO-59d. March 27, 1963
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed by George Forbes, a union representative,
and Floor Covering and Linoleum Workers Local 1823, herein called
the Petitioners, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Section
102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended.
In pertinent part, the Petition, and attachments thereto, allege as
follows :
1. The Petitioners are defendants in a proceeding pending in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket
No. L-6340-62 instituted by Tile Mart, herein called the Employer.
The complaint and answer in the court proceeding allege that the
Employer entered into a contract for the installation of a vinyl floor
on the premises of the Wine Cellar, in the Cherry Hill Mall, Route 38,
and Haddon Field Road, township of Cherry Hill, county of Camden,
New Jersey. Subsequently, on Sunday, September 23, 1962, the Em-
ployer began the installation work employing three mechanics who
were members of, and represented by, Local 1823. The Petitioners
demanded recognition as bargaining representative of the mechanics
and payment of double time for Sunday work. When the Employer
refused the demands, work was stopped and the mechanics failed to
complete the installation job. As a result of this labor dispute, the
141 NLRB No. 81.
TILE MART, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 887
Employer instituted the current court proceeding alleging that the
Petitioners tortiously interfered with the contractual relationship
between the Employer and its mechanic employees.
2. The Employer, a New Jersey corporation, is engaged in the sale,
installation, and distribution of floor tile, tile products, and linoleum
at its place of business at 1156 Haddon Avenue, Camden, New Jersey.
During the past 12 months the Employer admittedly received from
outside the State of New Jersey products valued in excess of $50,000.
3. No findings with respect to the commerce data hereinabove set
forth have been made by the superior court.
4. No representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving
the same labor dispute is pending before the Board,
5. Although served with the petition for Advisory Opinion, the
Employer has filed no response as provided by the Board's Rules and
Regulations.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that :
1. The Employer is engaged in the sale, distribution, and installa-
tion of floor tile, tile products, and linoleum in Camden, New Jersey.
As attested by the Employer's contract with the Wine Cellar, a com-
mercial enterprise, the Employer's operations are nonretail in nature,
at least in part.1 On the assumption the Employer may not be engaged
wholly in the nonretail business, but is conducting a mixed retail and
nonretail operation, jurisdiction will be asserted if either the Board's
retail or nonretail standard is met.'
2. The current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over non-
retail enterprises which fall within the Board's statutory jurisdiction
requires an annual minimum of $50,000 inflow or outflow across State
lines, direct or indirect.' The Employer admittedly has received from
outside New Jersey products valued in excess of $50,000 during the
past 12 months, and this constitutes direct inflow as defined in the
Siemons decision. The Employer's operations whether wholly non-
retail, or mixed retail and n.onretail, therefore satisfy the Board's
standard for the assertion of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the facts
and assumption herein, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the
Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cognizable under
Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.
' Bussey -tiVillian¢ s Tire Co ., 122 NLRB 1146.
21ndiana Bottled Gas Company, 128 NLRB 1441 ; Appliance Supply Company, 127
NLRB 319.
3 Sie'nons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85.