Carroll-Naslund Disposal, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 861 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

CARROLL-NASLUND DISPOSAL, INC. 861
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND ALL EMPLOYERS
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, 'as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage individuals
employed by American Oil Company, Clark Truck Lines, Pacific
Intermountain Express Company, or any other employer other
than W. S. Hatch Co., Inc., to engage in, a strike or refusal in
the course of their employment, to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials , or commodities, or to perform any services; or threaten,
coerce, or restrain the aforesaid employers other than Hatch,
where an object in either case is to force or require American to
cease doing business with Hatch.
LOCAL No. 222, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 609 Railway Exchange Building, 17th and Champa Streets,
Denver, Colorado, Telephone No. 534-4151, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Carroll -Naslund Disposal , Inc. and Truck Drivers Local No. 551,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Independent . Case No. 19-
CA-97770. May 95,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 4, 1964, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that it would not effec-
tuate the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
to assert jurisdiction in the instant case, and recommending dismissal
152 NLRB No. 88.
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the complaint in its entirety. In the event the Board decided to
assert jurisdiction, the Trial Examiner further found that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in his attached Decision.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent here-
with.
I. JURISDICTION
We adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. However, we
reject his further finding that the Respondent's commerce is so essen-
tially local in character that it would not effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction.
Respondent is in the business of collecting and disposing of garbage
and refuse. It performs its services in Lewiston, Idaho, and Clarks-
ton, Washington, which are on opposite shores of the Snake River.
During 1963, its gross income was approximately $88,000. Of this
sum, it received approximately $45,000 pursuant to a garbage-collec-
tion contract with the city of Lewiston, $22,811 from commercial
accounts in Lewiston, $1,642 from fees for operating a city dump,
$11,289 from residents of Lewiston Orchards, a suburb of Lewiston,
$5,248 from the Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District, which is
engaged in a landfill operation, and $3,115 from residents of Clarks-
ton Heights, a suburb of Clarkston, Washington. Of the services
rendered to commercial accounts in Lewiston, $7,236 was received from
enterprises which meet the Board's standards for the assertion of juris-
diction. The parties stipulated that the city of Lewiston purchased
goods and materials outside the State of Idaho valued at more than
$50,000.
The Trial Examiner rejected the General Counsel's contention that
in determining whether Respondent's operations meet the Board's
jurisdictional standards, services rendered to the city of Lewiston
should be included in the computation. As, apart from these services,
CARROLL-NASLUND DISPOSAL, INC. S63
Respondent did not have direct or indirect inflow or outflow in excess
of $50,000, the Trial Examiner recommended dismissing the com-
plaint.'
In Siemans Mailing,2 the case in which the Board defined jurisdic-
tional standards for nonretail enterprises, the Board said:
We will also continue our past practice of treating sales of goods
or services to enterprises or organizations which are themselves
exempted from the Board's jurisdiction as indirect outflow, where
such enterprises' or organizations' operations are of the magnitude
necessary for assertion of jurisdiction over comparable non-
exempt organizations.
Although the city of Lewiston is exempt from the Board's jurisdic-
tion under Section 2(2) of the Act, its operations are of a magnitude
which would justify the Board in asserting jurisdiction over it if it
were nonexempt. Accordingly, we shall treat the services rendered to
it as indirect outflow for jurisdictional purposes. The combined value
enterprises in that city is in excess of $50,000, which meets the indirect
outflow standard of Sievwns Mailing. We therefore find that it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
No exceptions having been filed to the Trial Examiner's findings that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act, or to his
findings of fact relative thereto, we hereby adopt these findings.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occur-
ring in connection with the operations of the Respondent as described
in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision, have a clear, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor
practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5)
and (1) of the Act, it will be ordered that the Respondent cease and
desist therefrom.
It having been further found that the Respondent refused to bar-
gain with the Union, which represented a majority of the employees
1 Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81
' Id. at 85, footnote 12
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in an appropriate unit, it will be further ordered that the Respondent
bargain, upon request, with the Union as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Carroll-Naslund Disposal, Inc., is an Employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
2. Truck Drivers Local No. 551, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Inde-
pendent, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. All of Respondent's Lewiston-Clarkston employees engaged in
the hauling and disposal of refuse, excluding office clerical employees
and supervisors , as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
4. At all times material the Union has been and still is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with the aforesaid labor
organization as the exclusive representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit, by soliciting signatures to letters revoking union
authorization cards, and by granting unilateral wage increases, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
Respondent , Carroll-Naslund Disposal, Inc., Lewiston, Idaho, its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment , or other conditions of employment, with Truck Drivers
Local No. 551, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, as the exclusive
representative of all its Lewiston-Clarkston employees engaged in the
hauling and disposal of refuse, excluding office clerical employees and
supervisors , as defined in the Act.
(b) In any manner soliciting signatures to letters or any other
documents revoking union authorization cards.
CARROLL-NASLUND DISPOSAL, INC. 865
(c) Granting unilateral wage increases or taking other unilateral
action on matters about which it has an obligation to bargain with
the Union under the Act.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effec-
tuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Union as the repre-
sentative of its employees in the appropriate unit in good faith and in
sincere effort to reach agreement and embody in a written and signed
memorandum any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its place of business in Lewiston, Idaho, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 19, shall, after being
duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Decision, what steps it has taken to
comply herewith.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a deciee of a United States Couit of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order"
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Truck Drivers
Local No. 551, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining
unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any manner solicit signatures to letters or any
other documents revoking union authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT grant unilateral wage increases or take other uni-
lateral action on matters about which we have an obligation to
bargain with the above Union ender the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
7 89-730-66-v of 152-56
866 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of said Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain With the above-named Union,
as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the bargain-
ing unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such an understanding in a
signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is :
All of our Lewiston-Clarkston employees engaged in the
hauling and disposal of refuse, excluding office clerical
employees and supervisors.
CARROLL-NASLUND DISPOSAL, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington,
Telephone No. Mutual 2-3300, Extension 553, if they have any ques-
tions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The above-captioned Union, herein called the Teamsters, filed a charge of unfair
labor practices on November 4, 1963, against Carroll-Naslund Disposal, Inc , herein
called Respondent or Carroll-Naslund. The Regional Director of the Board's
Region 19 issued an amended complaint, dated February 3, 1964, alleging viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Respondent in its answer denied the
commission of unfair labor practices and other allegations , including j urisdictional
allegations
The matter was heard before Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan in Lewiston, Idaho,
on March 19 and 20, 1964. Briefs were filed by the Charging Party and by
Respondent
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and from my observation of the wit-
nesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT 1
THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Carroll-Naslund Disposal, Inc., is an Idaho corporation, having its office and place
of business in Lewiston , Idaho, where it is engaged in the collection and disposal of
garbage and refuse.
Lewiston is a city with a population of approximately 12,691 It is located on the
east bank of the Snake River which is the western boundary of Idaho and the east-
It is found that the Teamsters Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act
CARROLL-NASLUND DISPOSAL, INC. 867
ern boundary of Washington. Clarkston, Washington, is on the west bank of the
Snake River, across a bridge from Lewiston. Clarkston's population is approxi-
mately 6,209.2 Lewiston Orchards is a suburb of Lewiston and is beyond the city
limits Spokane, Washington, is approximately 120 miles from Lewiston.
Virgil Carroll is the president of Carroll-Naslund and Hugh Naslund is vice presi-
dent and manager. Carroll's wife is secretary of the corporation that has about
seven employees. Carroll owns 55 percent of the stock and Naslund owns 45 per-
cent. Naslund is the brother-in-law of Carroll. The latter also owns 51 percent of
the stock in X-L Refuse, Inc., a Washington corporation, herem called X-L, that
is engaged in the collection of garbage and refuse in the Spokane area. The balance
of the X-L stock is owned by Crane, another brother-in-law of Carroll. The latter's
wife is secretary-treasurer of X-L and Carroll is president.
In Carrol-Naslund, Naslund works with the other employees and performs the
same type of work; in addition, he supervises the operation, making the day-to-day
decisions. On major decisions Naslund consults with Carroll. Substantially the
same is true of X-L, with Crane working as an employee and also supervising the
work. Carroll testified that he established X-L in order to make a job for his
brother-in-law and that, "I [Carroll] had the finances and he [Crane] had the back."
The equipment used by Carroll-Naslund and X-L is in some respects similar and
is in other respects different. It is purchased from different suppliers and not pursu-
ant to joint purchase. There is no evidence of any interchange of equipment or per-
sonnel between Carroll-Naslund and X-L. The General Counsel did not introduce
evidence with respect to amounts of purchases of equipment, such as tires, trucks,
gasoline, oil, and so forth by either company but the record does show no common
billing for gas, oil, services, or other items. Different insurance companies carry the
public liability insurance for each company. Separate audits of the books of each
company are made by the one auditor. According to Carroll, X-L was not financed
by Carrol-Naslund corporate funds.
By local ordinances, the city of Lewiston has the responsibility to collect and dis-
pose of garbage and refuse from the residents of the city. The city has awarded to
Carroll-Naslund a contract for the performance of the aforementioned garbage and
refuse collection and disposal. The contract prescribes residential and commercial
rates, and such matters as the use of containers, bundles, and so forth.
From the aforementioned contract with the city of Lewiston, Carroll-Naslund, in
1963, received a net sum of $36,624 or a gross sum of about $45,000 from the resi-
dents of the city 3 From its commercial accounts in Lewiston, such as stores and
other places of business, Carroll-Naslund received $22,811. Of these commercial
customers, some are engaged in interstate commerce within the Board's standards
by reason of purchases of $50,000 annually from out-of-State sources or sales of
$500,000 a year. The Company's fees from these customers, who are engaged in
commerce, come to $7,236 annually. As part of its agreement with the city, Carroll-
Naslund uses and maintains a dump which is city-county property and collects vari-
ous miscellaneous fees totaling $1,642 annually.
Lewiston Orchards is a residential suburban area outside the Lewiston city limits.
The Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District is a quasi-municipal corporation that
operates a domestic and an irrigation water system in Lewiston Orchards. Carroll-
Naslund has an arrangement whereby it collects the garbage and refuse in Lewiston
Orchards and it bills and collects from the residents thereof the sum of $11,289
annually. From the Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District which is engaged in a
landfill operation, Carroll-Naslund received $5,248.
2 The population figures of Lewiston and Clarkston are from the Census Bureau's 1960
census. There are no population figures in the record itself It is the Examiner's
opinion that the 1964 populations of the two cities is larger than the available 1960
census shows but no more than about 20,000 and 9,000, respectively, or under 30,000 and
10,000, respectively.
I In the interest of more efficient collection of its fees, the Company has provided in
its contract with the city that the latter will bill and collect the fees from the residents
The city is reimbursed for this service by a contractual provision that provides that it
will pay Carroll-Naslund all money collected in excess of $600 per month or 80 percent
of the sums collected, whichever is the least. Since collection of its fees in an ordinary
expense devolving upon a contractor, it is no different than other expenses, such as cost
and maintenance of equipment, wages, and other items. The gross amount of the dollars
received by Respondent from its contract with the city would therefore be the appropriate
sum to consider on the matter of the Board's jurisdiction.
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to Clarkston, Washington, that city has its own garbage operation in
the city. Carroll-Naslund performs its garbage-and-refuse collection in a suburb
known as Clarkston Heights, outside the corporate limits of the city of Clarkston.
In this work in Clarkston Heights, the Company uses one of its trucks that operates
out of its Lewiston office. It deposits its collection in the Clarkston dump and bills
the customers directly, receiving therefor $3,115.
The gross annual business of X-L was approximately $47,000. Of this sum, X-L
receives approximately $25,000 on a Government contract to collect garbage and
refuse from the Fairchild Air Force Base which is in the Spokane area.4 The other
income is derived from collections of garbage and refuse in small communities in
the Spokane area .5
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING JURISDICTION
At the hearing Respondent contended that since by law only the city of Lewiston
could collect garbage and refuse within its jurisdiction, Carroll-Naslund was in effect
an agent of the city and therefore it was the city that was involved. As a municipality,
it was argued, the city was outside the Board's jurisdiction.6 It is my opinion that
Carroll-Naslund was not an agent of the city but was a city or Government contrac-
tor.7 Carroll-Naslund is the employer of its employees who collect garbage pursuant
to the Company's contract with the city. The employees are not employees of the
city.
The next contention, this time by the General Counsel, is that Carroll-Naslund and
X-L constitute a single employers I do not agree. The single employer concept in
this connection apparently rests upon the alleged integration of the Carroll-Naslund
and X-L companies and their operations. Integration is the situation where parts or
elements unite to form one whole or to operate as one . In my opinion, the two com-
panies before me operate not as one but as two. One company is an Idaho corpo-
ration and the other is a Washington corporation. They operate about 120 miles
apart, one in the Spokane area and the other in Lewiston. There is no interchange
of equipment or personnel , no common purchasing, no common warehousing, or
since these are garbage companies it is more accurate to say no common dump.
The companies are not held out to the public or others as a single enterprise and
the names of the companies bear no resemblance or even hint at being a common
enterprise .9
Virgil Carroll is the majority stockholder in each corporation and no doubt lays
down basic policy. He and his wife, as president and secretary of the corporations,
apparently keep control of their investment but leave the day-to-day operations in
the hands of two brothers-in-law. I do not know how many sisters Mrs. Carroll
may have or whether there are sons-in-law in the family. But, for purposes of illus-
tration, it is conceivable that Mr. Carroll might set up another business for a son-in-
law in Denver or Los Angeles and with Carroll and his wife as officers of the corpo-
ration and as majority stockholders. Assuming the same situation as in the instant
case, I would have difficulty in concluding that the Denver and Los Angeles opera-
tions formed part of an integrated enterprise with X-L and Carroll-Naslund, unless
majority stock ownership and the basic financial control resulting therefrom render
two or more corporations one. Family owned and operated corporations are not, in
my opinion, one employer by reason of the family factor and stock ownership alone
and, on the facts in this record, it is my opinion that Carroll-Naslund and X-L are
separate corporations and operate as such.
We now consider the question of jurisdiction with respect to Carroll-Naslund.
Statutory jurisdiction exists by reason of Carroll-Naslund's business in Clarkston
Heights, Washington. The one truck used in this interstate operation and the amount
of the business, $3,115, as well as the nature of the business, residential garbage col-
lection, impresses me as de minimis interstate business. Although the garbage from
4 The contract is awarded annually on the basis of bids submitted by contractors
5 E g , Medical Lake, Air Way Heights, Cheney. The record indicates that Cheney is
a town of about 3,000 people The other population figures do not appear
6 Section 2(2) of the Act.
7 Monsanto Chemical Company , Clinton Laboratories , Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 76 NLRB
767: American Smelting and Refining Company (Colorado Plateau Uranium Ore Project),
92 NLRB 1451; Great Southern Chemical Corporation, 96 NLRB 1013.
s Amended complaint, paragraphs III and IV.
6 Cf. Overton Markets , Inc., et at., d/b /a "Overton Markets," 142 NLRB 615 ; Thunder-
bird Hotel, Ino., et al., d/b/a, Thunderbird Hotel Company, 144 NLRB 84
CARROLL-NASLUND DISPOSAL, INC. 869
Clarkston Heights is not trucked back into Lewiston in interstate commerce but
remains in the State of origin in whatever state of decomposition it may be in,
Carroll-Naslund, an Idaho corporation, is doing business across State lines What-
ever interstate traffic there may be in odors from the Clarkston, Washington, dump
and from the Lewiston, Idaho dump, across the Snake River, is no doubt dependent
on such variable factors as wind and atmospheric conditions, and I am, therefore.
quite willing to forgo taking cognizance of this last-mentioned factor.
As regards the Board's discretionary jurisdiction under its standards announced in
1958, the $7,236 service business that Carroll-Naslund performs in Lewiston for cus-
tomers engaged in interstate commerce is the most solid jurisdictional factor, plus
the $3,115 in Clarkston services. However, the amount is well below the Board's
standard of $50,000 indirect outflow.
The General Counsel contends that Carroll-Naslund's performance of $45,000
worth of services for the city of Lewiston, pursuant to contract, should be counted
in arriving at the jurisdictional amount. The parties stipulated that the city pur-
chased goods and materials directly from outside the State of a value of at least
$50,000.
Initially, it is apparent that the city is not a commercial enterprise. Equally clear
is the fact that garbage collection in the city, except for firms engaged in interstate
commerce, is about as local an activity as can be conceived. Cases where a com-
pany supplies stone for railroads for use as track ballast or to State highway depart-
ments or where a company builds bridges or highways under contract with a State
or its agencies are clearly distinguishable since in these cases we are dealing with
essential links or arteries in channels of commerce.10
Since probably all cities of 10,000 or more and certainly all cities of 50,000 or
more population and all States and the Federal Government would be in commerce
under the Board's standards, the rationale urged by the General Counsel in the
instant case would bring all contractors performing services of $50,000 for such
governmental bodies within the Board's jurisdiction. However, even in those cases
involving contractors with the Federal Government, the Board customarily does not
base its jurisdiction on such ground. Thus, in American Smelting and Refining
Company, supra, the company as agent for the Atomic Energy Commission secured
uranium ores. The Board based its commerce findings not on the fact that the
company was performing services for a Federal agency but on the company's gen-
eral operations in interstate commerce (92 NLRB at 1452, footnote 4). In some-
what related situations, jurisdiction has been asserted on the ground that the opera-
tion affected national defense but not on the ground that the governmental body
itself, with whom the contract existed, was engaged in commerce.11
The Oakland Scavenger Company case 12 was a situation where the employer was
under contract to furnish garbage-collection service for a number of cities and sani-
tary districts in California. Jurisdiction was asserted on the basis of receipt of
$100,000, out of a total income of $1 million that represented services to commercial
firms engaged in commerce. In R. 1. Incinerator, inc ,13 an advisory opinion by the
Board, the company had a garbage-collection contract with the city of Pawtucket,
Rhode Island. Although the company received $286,000 from the city and $5,000
from commercial firms, jurisdiction was based on the company's own direct and
indirect purchases of tires, trucks, bulldozers and other items totaling $160,000.
The considerations found to exist in Browne and Buford, Engineers and Sun ve) -
ors 14 do not exist in the present case. The employer was a partnership in Kansas
City, Kansas, engaged in rendering surveying, design, and inspection services. A
substantial amount of the services was rendered to the State of Kansas and its political
subdivisions in connection with projects financed in significant part by the Federal
10 G. C McBride Company, 110 NLRB 1255; HPO Service, Inc., 122 NLRB 394 (trans-
portation of mail pursuant to contract with Post Office Department) ; Madison County
Construction Co., 115 NLRB 701; F. M. Reeves and Sons, Inc., 111 NLRB 186; J. Tom
Moore & Sons, Inc., 119 NLRB 1663 . In the last -mentioned case the Board included
$20,000 worth of sales of armored trucks to four Federal Reserve banks, finding that
the banks were economic and monetary instrumentalities of commerce and had extensive
interstate operations.
11 Great Southern Chemical Corporation, supra, hutylene rubber production under con-
tract with the RFC.
12 98 NLRB 1318.
13 137 NLRB 213.
It 145 NLRB 765.
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Government. More specifically, the employer received $28,000 for services to the
Urban Renewal Agency of Kansas City and $34,000 for services to a township in
the construction of sewage treatment facilities. The Board found:
Both the urban renewal and sewage treatment projects are recipients of sub-
stantial Federal funds and are part of nationwide Federal programs .
It is clear that a labor dispute disrupting services to these projects would have
a serious and adverse impact on programs which are closely bound to the
national interest ....15
The Truman Schlup, Consulting Engineer case 16 is substantially to the same effect.
In Truman Schlup there also were involved engineering services to the Urban Renewal
Agency and a Kansas City sewage extention program, and the Board cited B;owne
and Buford, supra. The employer also performed survey work for the State High-
way Commission in connection with the building of State and interstate highways.
On this aspect the Board referred to the line of cases involving furnishing of stone
and other material to governmental agencies engaged in highway construction. These
cases were discussed earlier in my decision.
It is my opinion that it would not effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert ju-
risdiction in the instant case because of the essentially local nature of Respondent's
operation. Dismissal is therefore recommended.17
The Merits
Although I have recommended dismissal of the complaint on jurisdictional grounds,
I have no way of being certain of the Board's action. The facts of the case are pres-
ently in mind and since it is at least possible that the Board might assert jurisdiction,
I have decided to make my findings on the merits. This will obviate a remand at
some later date in the event the Board asserts jurisdiction. If the complaint is dis-
missed as recommended, the findings on the merits will of course have no force or
effect. The findings on the merits are contingent.
In September 1963 the Union secured the signatures of all seven or a majority of
Respondent's seven employees on union authorization cards. The Union wrote to
Respondent on September 23, 1963, claiming that it represented a majority of its
employees in the Lewiston-Clarkston operation, exclusive of office clerical employ-
ees The letter stated, "If you so desire, we stand prepared to prove our majority
before any disinterested person we may mutually select." A time and place of meet-
ing was arranged. Byers, the union representative, met with Naslund on October 2,
1963 Both Byers and Naslund testified that the latter stated that he acknowledged
that a majority of the employees had signed cards for the Union. Various aspects
of having a union representing the employees were discussed. Naslund was particu-
larly interested in what the cost element would be. This was reviewed in general.
Thereafter, pursuant to what had been discussed at the meeting, the Union, on
October 8, mailed Respondent a written contract proposal and a letter proposing a
meeting. Naslund, who testified that he could have signed the contract without con-
sulting Carroll, did not reply or thereafter communicate with the Union. Nor did
Carroll or the corporation reply.
In the period after October 2, Naslund asked one employee if he had signed a
union card. The man said he had. When Naslund asked why, the employee said
he did so because the others had done so. During this period Naslund discussed the
union matter with Carroll. They discussed the additional cost involved. On Octo-
ber 29 Naslund had his wife type identical letters addressed to the Union. The let-
ters stated
This is to notify you that I am satisfied with the working conditions of Carroll
Naslund Disposal Service and have no desire to be represented by your union.
15 The employer also had received $23,000 as direct outflow for services rendered outside
the State of Kansas.
16 145 NLRB 768.
17I am, of course, aware of the interests or rights of the employees involved But
somewhere there is a line that is to be drawn between the Board's jurisdiction and what
lies beyond. In this connection, I note some statistics regarding the Board's case-load
Without going back to 1937 or the 1940's or even the early 1950's, we noted that the
Twenty-third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board in 1958 stated ". Un-
precedented In the history of the Board were the total number of cases filed, 16,478 "
In its next year's report an "unprecedented number of 21,633" cases was noted The
figure in the 1963 report was 25,371
NEWSPAPER AND MAIL DELIVERERS ' UNION, ETC. 871
This matter of the letters was discussed by Carroll and Naslund. Naslund took the
letters to individual employees at their homes. He testified that he asked the
employees to sign the letters if they wished. Five employees signed individual but
identical letters and Naslund or his wife mailed them to the Union. At sometime
after October 2, probably in November, Respondent granted wage increases to vari-
ous employees.
It is found that the appropriate unit consists of all Respondent's Lewiston-Clarkston
employees engaged in the hauling and disposal of refuse , excluding office clerical
employees and supervisors , as defined in the Act. It is also found that since Octo-
ber 2 , 1963 , the Union has represented a majority of Respondent 's employees in the
aforementioned unit.
Respondent's statutory obligation was to recognize and to bargain in good faith
with the Union and, if agreement was reached , to embody the agreement in a signed
contract . Respondent was not obliged to agree with the Union but its conduct in
undermining the Union by solicitation of signatures from employees to letters with-
drawing their union adherence was not good -faith bargaining as contemplated by the
Act.18 This is also true of Respondent's conduct in ignoring and failing to respond to
the Union's letter of October 8, and its conduct in failing to meet and bargain there-
after. To the same effect is Respondent's conduct in granting wage increases at a
time when it was obliged to bargain with the Union regarding wages and other con-
ditions of employment. Accordingly, it is found that Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8 (a)( 1 ) and (5) of the Act.
The customary remedial action is appropriate. This would consist of a recom-
mended order directed to Respondent to cease and desist from interfering with the
rights of employees guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. The order would include
cessation of any solicitation of employees to secure their repudiation of the Union
and the granting of wage increases unilaterally. The order would also require a
cessation of the refusal to bargain with the Union. Affirmatively, the recommended
order would require that Respondent , upon request , bargain with the Union and, if
agreement is reached , that it be embodied in a signed contract . Also recommended
would be the posting of a notice to the employees , signed by the Respondent's rep-
resentative , setting forth the foregoing remedial action.19
RECOMENDED ORDER
Upon the jurisdictional facts, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
18 Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, 1264, enfd. as modified 185 F. 2d 732, 741
(C.A.D.C.) ; N.L.R.B. v. Harry Epstein, et at., d/b/a Top Mode Manufacturing Co., 203
F. 2d 482, 484 (C.A. 3), cert. denied 347 U.S. 912.
19 In the event that the Board asserts jurisdiction over Respondent and if it agrees
with the findings hereinabove on the merits, I believe that the mechanics of the Recom-
mended Order and notice could be handled without a remand to me.
Newspaper and Mail Deliverers ' Union of New York City and
Vicinity 1 and The New York Times Company 2 and New York
Mailers' Union Number Six , International Typographical
Union, AFL-C103. Case No. 2-CD-324. May 25. 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , following a charge filed by the Company
alleging that the Deliverers had threatened, coerced, and restrained
1 Hereinafter referred to as the Deliverers.
2 Hereinafter referred to as the Company.
2 Hereinafter referred to as the Mailers.
152 NLRB No. 79.