Inter-County Rural Electric Cooperative Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 28, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1316 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has consistently held that a party filing objec-
tions to an election is obligated to furnish evidence in support
of such objections , and that , unless such evidence is produced,
the Regional Director is not required further to pursue his
investigation of such objections .2 Any other rule would seri-
ously impede the processing of representation petitions. The
Board is fully able to protect individuals who may appear as
witnesses at its investigations or hearings against retaliatory
action either by unions or employers . Accordingly, as the
Employer failed to submit evidence in support of its objec-
tions , we find that they do not raise material or substantial
issues with respect to the election and hereby overrule them.
As the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes
cast in the election , we shall certify it as the bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Local 671 , Upholsterers' International
Union of North America , AFL, as the designated collective-
bargaining representative of the employees of the Hincher
Manufacturing Company , Washington , Indiana , in the unit
hereinabove found appropriate.]
2 Wiley Mfg. Inc., 93 NLRB 1600; Norfolk SouthernBus Corporation , 61 NLRB 1591 ; Norfolk
Southern Bus Corporation , 66 NLRB 1165 , enfd. 159 F . 2d 516 (C. A. 2).
INTER - COUNTY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE COR-
PORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL . Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-
2043 . October 28, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry D.
Campodonico , 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 , a rural electric corporation , has its principal
place of business in Danville , Kentucky . It generates no
electricity , but purchases all of its electricity for resale
from the Kentucky Utilities Company at Lexington , Kentucky.
During the year immediately preceding the hearing, the
Employer purchased , from the Kentucky Utilities Company,
electricity valued at more than $100 , 000. During the same
period it resold and distributed to its members electricity
valued at more than $ 400,000 . A small amount of its sales
were to commercial users, railroads , dams, and other com-
panies. Most of its sales were to its 8,000 rural consumers.
106 NLRB No. 239.
GOVERNALE & DREW, INC. 1317
The Employer concedes that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and that therefore the Board could
lawfully assert jurisdiction here. However , as the Employer's
operations appear to be essentially intrastate in character
and as it deals almost exclusively with local rural consumers,
who are themselves members of the cooperative , we believe
that its operations do not have a sufficient impact upon inter-
state commerce to justify our taking jurisdiction . Accordingly,
without deciding the other issues raised by the parties, we
shall dismiss the petition on the ground that it would not
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
[The Board dismissed the petition. ]
Member Murdoch, dissenting:
I dissent from the majority' s departure from the Board's
jurisdictional plan in refusing to assert jurisdiction over a
public utility. That plan, which has been in effect for 3 years,
states the Board ' s policy to assert jurisdiction over "Public
utility systems such as gas , electric , and public transit sys-
tems." In the lead case announcing that part of the plan,' the
Board said : "Our experience has shown that public utilities,
including public transit systems of the type here involved, have
such an important impact on commerce as to warrant our
taking jurisdiction over all cases involving such enterprises,
where they are engaged in commerce or in operations affect-
ing commerce , subject only to the rule of de minimis."
(Emphasis supplied .) Clearly the rule of de minimis has no
application here , the Employer concedes that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and whatever the
character of its other operations , there is a direct inflow
of materials from out of State in an amount in excess of
$150,000 . The fact that a very large proportion of the customers
are rural consumers has never been deemed a reason for
excepting a public utility from the plan . We have taken
jurisdiction over so many similar rural electric cooperatives,
that there is no need to begin citing cases.
1W. C. King, d /b/a Local Transit Lines , 91 NLRB 623.
GOVERNALE & DREW, INC., Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL
LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL and UNITED
MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA.' Case No . 21-RM-257.
October 28, 1953
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 Max Steinfeld
'United Mine Workers of America was denied leave to intervene because it is not in com-
pliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
106 NLRB No. 232.