Mark Nolan, Presiding Judge, District Court of St. Louis County, Sixth Judicial District of Minnesota

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 576 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mark Nolan , Presiding Judge , District Court of St. Louis County,
Sixth Judicial District of Minnesota and Interlake Steamship
Company and Pickands Mather & Co. and Marine Engineers
Beneficial Association and Marine Engineers Beneficial Asso-
ciation Local 101. Case No. A0-43. September 14, 1962
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed on August 20,1962, by Mark Nolan, Presiding
Judge, District Court of St. Louis County, Sixth Judicial District of
Minnesota, herein called the Petitioner, pursuant to Sections 102.98
and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
requesting an advisory opinion with respect to the jurisdictional issues
raised in the injunction proceedings instituted before the Petitioner by
Interlake Steamship Company and Pickands Mather & Co., herein
called the Employer, against the picketing by Marine Engineers Bene-
ficial Association and Marine Engineers Beneficial Association Local
101, herein called the Union.'
Thereafter, on August 27, 1962, the Employer and the Union filed
responses to the petition for advisory opinion. On the same date, Co-
lumbia Transportation Division, Ogelbay Norton Company, herein
called Columbia, filed a motion to intervene contending that the issues
raised by the petition for advisory opinion herein had been included
in its request for Board review of the Regional Director's dismissal of
its representation petition in Case No. 8-RM-297 (not published in
NLRB volumes). The Board had denied Columbia's request for re-
view on August 6,1962. On August 31,1962, the Union filed objections
to Columbia's motion to intervene. The motion of Columbia to inter-
vene herein is hereby granted.
The Board has duly considered the petition, the responses, and the
intervention submitted to it. Essentially, the Board's advisory opin-
ion procedures were adopted to eliminate the "no-man's land" between
State and Federal jurisdiction by permitting the expeditious resolu-
tion of doubts arising from the applicability of the Board's commerce
standards, which are generally couched in monetary terms. The Board
has recently reiterated its position that the advisory opinion procedures
"are designed primarily to determine questions of jurisdiction by the
application of the Board's discretionary standards to the `commerce'
operations of an employer." 2 The issues posed herein by the Petitioner
relate to whether the Union is a "labor organization" within the mean-
2 The Petitioner 's injunction order was affirmed by the Minnesota Supreme Court, 260
Minn 1, on March 30, 1961, but was reversed by the United States Supreme Court,
370 U.S. 173, on June 11, 1962.
2 Upper Lakes Sheppoig, Ltd., 138 NLRB 221. See also Reynolds Metal Co, 134 NLRB
1187 , and National Bulk Carriers, 134 NLRB 1186, which deal with Declaratory Orders.
138 NLRB No. 80.
KINGSBURY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. 577
ing of the Act and whether the Union's picketing activities constitute
violations of the Act. As these issues do not concern questions of the
applicability of the Board's discretionary commerce standards, they
do not fall within the intendment of the Board's advisory opinion
rules.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
s The advisory opinion procedures are set forth in Sections 102.98 through 102.104 of
the Board 's Rules and Regulations.
Section 102.99 ( a), which deals with a petition filed by a party to a State proceeding,
requires that the petition allege inter alia:
(6) The Commerce data relating to the operations of such business . [Emphasis
supplied ]
1(7) Whether commerce data described in this section are admitted or denied by
other parties to the proceeding. [ Emphasis supplied ]
(8) The findings , if any, of the agency or court respecting the commerce data de-
scribed in this section . [ Emphasis supplied ]
Section 102 98(b), which deals with a petition filed by a State agency or court, requires
that the petition allege inter alia:
(5) The findings of the agency or court, or in the absence of findings, a . statement
of the evidence relating to the commerce operations of such business . [ Emphasis
supplied. ]
Section 102 103 provides that the Board determine whether "the commerce operations
of the employer involved are such that it would or would not assert jurisdiction."
[Emphasis supplied.]
Further , Sections 102 .106 and 102 110 of the Rules dealing with declaratory orders have
similar piovisions relating to "commerce data" and "commerce operations of the employer."
Kingsbury Electric Cooperative , Inc. and Local Union No. 426,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 18-CA-1288. September 17, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 18, 1962, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued an
Intermediate Report, attached hereto, in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent's operations did not meet the Board's
standards for the assertion of jurisdiction. Accordingly, without
passing upon the merits of the complaint, which alleged violations
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act, the Trial Examiner recom-
mended that the complaint be dismissed. Subsequently, by order
dated April 20, 1962, the Board reversed the Trial Examiner's juris-
dictional findings and remanded the case to the Trial Examiner for
the submission of a Supplemental Intermediate Report on the merits
of the case.
On June 8, 1962, the Trial Examiner issued his Supplemental Inter-
mediate Report finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it
138 NLRB No. 63.