Imperial Outfitters

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 9, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 2 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IMPERIAL OUTFITTERS and MEREDITH W. ANDERSEN, Pe- titioner and LOCAL 34, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL. Case No. 2-RD-205. November 9, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Aaron Weiss- man, 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: The Employer asserts that it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The record shows that the Employer, a New Jersey corporation, operates a single retail store located at Newark, New Jersey, selling household goods, clothing, and jewelry on the installment plan from its store, and from door to door. During the past year, it made purchases in excess of $25,000 of which 75 percent was shipped from out- side the State. During the same period, it shipped in excess of $25,000 to Imperial Electronics, a separate corporation, which operates a similar retail store in Brooklyn, ,New York. Impe- rial Electronics has the same officers and stockholders as the Employer. The practice has been for the Employer to purchase almost all necessary merchandise for itself and for Imperial Elec- tronics. The shipments of such merchandise to Imperial Elec- tronics constitute the Employer's only out-of-State shipments. However, because Imperial Electronics has been in the process of liquidation, the Employer, about 9 months prior to the hear- ing, ceased making purchases on behalf of Imperial Electronics. It is anticipated that the liquidation of Imperial Electronics will be completed within 6 months fromthedate of the hearing. It is clear that, apart from its activities on behalf of Impe- rial Electronics, the Employer's operations, although not whol- ly unrelated to commerce, are essentially local in nature and are not of sufficient magnitude to warrant the assertion of the Board's jurisdiction.' In view of the fact that the liquidation of Imperial Electron- ics will be completed in the very near future, we believe that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris- diction over the Employer herein. The petition, therefore, will be dismissed. [The Board dismissed the petition.] iRetley's Stores, Inc., 96 NLRB 516; Evans Fur Company, 88 NLRB 1096. 107 NLRB No. 17.