Treasure State Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 529 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

TREASURE STATE EQUIPMENT COMPANY 529
Treasure . State , Equipment Company and International Union
-'-of Operating Engineers , Local Union 371, A. F. L., Petitioner:
Case No. 19-RC-1660. October 18, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert L. Gese, hearing
officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Petitioner seeks a unit of employees at the Employer's
Kalispell, Montana, operation. The Employer moves to dismiss, the
petition on jurisdictional grounds.
The Employer is engaged in the sale of logging equipment and road
construction equipment, such as tractors, shovels, and loaders, through
outlets at Kalispell and Missoula, Montana. It operates under exclu-
sive franchises from International Harvester Company, and other
concerns . During the past year the Employer made purchases outside
Montana valued' at approximately $750,000.
In Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling, Wage and Hour Administrator,
326 U. S. 657, the Supreme Court found that a concern similar to-that
involved in this proceeding was not a retail or service establishment.
In line with the decision in that case, we find that the Employer's
business herein is nonretail in nature. Therefore as the enterprise
involved has an annual direct inflow of goods in excess of $500,000;
its operations in this respect satisfy the Board's jurisdictional require-
ments,z and 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 case. Accordingly, we deny-the
Employer's motion to dismiss the petition.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 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:
' The names of the parties appear herein as corrected at the hearing . After the close
of the hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation supplementing the commerce data
which had been presented at the hearing . This stipulation is hereby incorporated into
the record.
2 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481, 483
s The Employer refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act. As it is an organization which represents employees for
collective -bargaining purposes , we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act
114 NLRB No. 95.
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All employees engaged in the repairing, painting, and servicing of
equipment at the Employer's Kalispell, Montana, operation, excluding
office employees, clerical employees, parts department employees,
watchmen , guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act .4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
ACTING CHAIRMAN RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
S There is no dispute as to the apps opriate unit
The Anaconda Company 1 and Manford L. Reeves , Petitioner and
Coso Mine, Mill and Chemical Workers, Local No . 841, of the
International Union of Mine , Mill and Smelter Workers.
Case No. 31-RD-261. October 18,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis A. Gordon,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made 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 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union, which is currently recognized by the Employer as the bar-
gaining representative of the employees designated in the petition,
is no longer the representative as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. Since 1951, at least, the Employer and the Union have ,been in'
contractual relations with each other. In that year, the parties ex-
ecuted a contract, effective from July 1, 1951, to June 30, 1953, pro-
viding for its automatic renewal in the absence of a 60-day notice
to modify. As amended by supplemental agreements and by opera-
tion of the automatic renewal clause, the contract continued in effect
up to and including June 30, 1955. Following negotiations instituted
at an undisclosed date before June 8, 1955, the parties reached agree-
ment on a new contract, to become effective July 1, which the parties
initialed on June 8 and later formalized without change on June 18.
The Employer and Union customarily followed such a practice in
executing their agreements.
'The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
114 NLRB No. 91.