Matthews Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 435 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

MATTHEWS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 435
We agree with the Union that the changes in the duties and re-
sponsibilities of these three employees do not warrant their removal
from the unit. Matching colors requires only visual acuity, while mix-
ing inks to obtain a satisfactory match does not, in our opinion, re-
quire the kind of judgment and specialized training which qualifies
one as a technical employee.' In fact, under the circumstances present
here, we are convinced that their interests and working conditions
have not been changed substantially in the jobs they now have. Other
arguments made by the Employer for their exclusion, namely, that
their work is creative or that they fulfill a management responsibility
in achieving color matches, are without merit. We, therefore, find
that work of the nature now performed by Schwier, Reynolds, and
Peters in the gravure services department is within the certified unit.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Union's motion to clarify its certifica-
tion in Case No. 9-RA-46 be granted so as to include within the produc-
tion and maintenance unit the color matching and ink formulation
work of the gravure services department.
8 Litton Induatriea of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722.
Robert M. Matthews, d/b/a Matthews Construction Company
and Eastern Iowa District Council of Carpenters of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America . Case No.
AO-56. May 2, 1963
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed on behalf of the Eastern Iowa District
Council of Carpenters of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, herein called the Petitioner, by Ellis Howern,
Petitioner's business agent, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity
with Section 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended. Thereafter, on April 11, 1963, Robert Matthews,
d/b/a Matthews Construction Company, herein called the Employer
or primary employer, filed a response to petition for Advisory Opinion.
In pertinent part, the petition, response, and attachments thereto
allege as follows :
1. The Petitioner is a party defendant to an injunction proceeding
in the Twentieth Judicial District Court of Iowa, Des Moines County,
Burlington, Iowa, Docket No. 13761 filed by the Employer seeking
to enjoin the Petitioner from picketing the construction site where the
142 NLRB No. 53.
712-548-64-vol . 142-29
436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer was performing carpenter work under contract with Nelson
Funeral Home, the general contractor.
2. In the district court proceeding, the Employer alleges that the
picketing of the jobsite with a sign respecting wages and working con-
ditions constitutes an illegal demand for recognition and a secondary
boycott which has stopped the transportation and delivery of goods
and building materials to the project site by three secondary em-
ployers, Fullerton Lumber Company, W. G. Block Company, and
Willson Sand and Gravel Company. In addition, the picketing al-
legedly prevented other unnamed secondary companies from entering
upon the construction site.
3 . The Employer is engaged as a general contractor in Burlington,
Des Moines County, Iowa, performing residential and commercial
construction. He performs no construction work outside of Iowa and
none of his employees are union members.
4. Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion based upon information
and belief, the Employer has submitted an affidavit stating that during
the calendar year 1962, according to his books and records, the Em-
ployer's purchases from various suppliers of goods and materials
which did or might have originated outside the State of Iowa would
not exceed $50,000.
5. Upon information and belief, the Petitioner alleges that Fuller-
ton and Block, which are located in Burlington, Iowa, each are multi-
state enterprises; and that each purchases goods and services which
originated outside of the State of Iowa far in excess of $50,000. The
Employer admits that these two companies do more than $50,000
business in interstate commerce and that during 1962, his total
purchases from these companies were $15,228.07 and $3,056.15,
respectively.
6. No findings with respect to the commerce data hereinabove set
forth have been made by the district court.
7. There is no representation or unfair labor practice proceeding
concerning this labor dispute pending before the Board.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that:
1. The Employer is a general contractor engaged in residential and
commercial construction in Burlington, Iowa.
2. The current Board standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over
nonretail enterprises within its statutory jurisdiction requires an an-
nual minimum of $50,000 inflow or outflow across State lines, direct
or indirect. Siemens Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85.
3. During the calendar year 1962, the Employer's purchases of
goods and materials which did or might have originated from out-
side of Iowa would not exceed $50,000. As there is no showing that
the Employer has a sufficient amount of out-of-State inflow, his
JOHNSON READY MIX CO. 437
operations would not appear to meet the Siemoim standard for the
:assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises.
4. In cases involving secondary activity by a union which may be
violative of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act, where, as here, the primary
employer's operations do not appear to meet the Board's jurisdic-
tional standard, the Board will take into consideration for juris-
dictional purposes not only the operations of the primary employer
but also the entire operations of the secondary employers at the loca-
tion affected by the alleged conduct involved.' As the Petitioner's
picketing resulted in the stoppage of deliveries to the construction
site by secondary employers, Fullerton, Block, and Willson, and in
the prevention of other unnamed companies from entering the job,
site, the operations of these secondary employers at the site affected
by the picketing may be combined with those of the primary employer
and the combined total may be considered in resolving the jurisdic-
tional question. However, there is no indication as to the extent to
which the Petitioner's picketing affected the secondary employers'
constructon site operations. Under these circumstances, the Board
is unable to make a meaningful jurisdictional determination herein.
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the
allegations here present, the Board is unable to conclude whether or
not it would assert jurisdiction herein.
i Weibel Excavating Company, 137 NLRB 1788, and cases cited in footnote 1.
Johnson Ready Mix Co . and General Drivers and Helpers Union
Local No. 554, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case No. 17-CA-1998. May 2, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by General Drivers and Helpers Union
Local No. 554, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the
Seventeenth Region, issued a complaint dated July 31, 1962, against
Johnson Ready Mix Co., herein called the Respondent, alleging that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended. Copies of
the charges, complaint, and notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner
were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
142 NLRB No. 50.