Morris and Horner, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 953 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

MORRIS AND HORNER, INC. 953
employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act 7
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7 The parties stipulated to the appropriateness of the unit.
MORRIS AND HORNER, INC. and LOCAL 900, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, A. F . L. Case No. 10-CA-1747. Novem-
ber 22,1954
Decision and Order
On December 10, 1953, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative remedial ac-
tion. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended
that the complaint be dismissed in that respect. Thereafter, the Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the record in the case,
and finds merit in the Respondent's exception to the assertion of juris-
diction over its operations.
The record discloses' that the Respondent is a Tennessee corpora-
tion having its principal office and place of business at Clinton, Ten-
nessee , where it is engaged in the sale and repair of automobiles and
trucks. It operates under a franchise agreement from the Ford Motor
Company. During a representative period beginning June 3, 1952,
and ending May 3, 1953, the Respondent purchased motor vehicles,
parts, and accessories in the approximate value of $245,000 which
were shipped to its place of business from points outside the State
of Tennessee. During the same period the Respondent sold motor
vehicles, parts, and accessories in the approximate value of $19,400
which were shipped from its place of business to points outside the
State.
Upon the foregoing facts we find that it will not effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Respondent, in view
1 The facts as to the Respondent 's business originally appearing in the record have been
supplemented by a stipulation entered into by the parties since the hearing and made a
part of the record herein.
110 NLRB No. 159.
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the essentially local nature of its business.2 We shall, therefore,
dismiss the complaint.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
s Wilson. Oldsmobile Co., 110 NLRB 534.
J. SPEVAK & CO., INC. , SPEVAK-STINSON CO., INC. AND DIIKELAND
PACKING CO ., INC. and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER
WORKMEN OF N. A., LOCAL No . 149, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
5-RC-1517. November 22, 1954
Decision and Certification of Representatives
On August 20, 1954, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Re-
gion among the employees in the agreed appropriate unit. Following
the election, the Regional Director served on the parties a tally of bal-
lots, which showed that of approximately 180 eligible voters 178 cast
ballots, of which 96 were cast for the Petitioner; 54 were cast for
Spevak-Dukeland Employees' Local No. 1, herein called the Inter-
venor; 4 were cast against the participating labor organizations; and
24 were challenged. The challenged ballots were not determinative
of the results of the election.
On August 25, 1954, the Employer filed objections to the election,
alleging that threats of bodily harm and intimidation of employees
made by the Petitioner interfered with the election. On September
22, 1954, the Regional Director filed his report on objections, in which
he recommended that the objections be overruled and that the Peti-
tioner be certified as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit. On October 1, 1954, the Employer filed excep-
tions to the Regional Director's report.
The Board has reviewed the stipulation of the parties, the objec-
tions, the Regional Director's report on objections, and the Employer's
exceptions thereto.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
110 NLRB No. 156.