Upshur Rural Electric Cooperative Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 207 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

UPSHUR RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION 207
No proof was adduced by the General Counsel that the Union during 1952 or at any time
for that matter applied moneys as alleged in the complaint ii and thereafter requested the
Company to discharge employees for delinquency in dues
The proviso of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act states:
... This subsection shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its
own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein.
Under the terms of the proviso the Unionhas the right to fine its members for not attending
union meetings and to go so far as to suspend them from membership for nonpayment of
fines However, threatening employees with the loss of their employment if they fail or re-
fuse to pay the fines where they continue to pay or tender the periodic dues is proscribed
by the Act See Namm's Inc , 102 NLRB 466.
Standing alone the "Warning" to employees that no further dues would be accepted if they
failed to pay fines or in lieu thereof present valid official meeting excuses is not a threat
of loss of employment. Here, however, the "Warning" was followed by a letter, such as the
one sent to Ward on November 30, 1952 When the documents are read together it is re-
vealed that if an employee fails to pay fines, no further dues will be accepted from him
thus resulting in a delinquency in dues, automatic suspension from union membership, and
.. obliged to leave the job." Clearly, this spells out a threat of loss of employment
Other than the Union's letter to Ward, dated November 30, 1951, the General Counsel did
not adduce evidence that after that date the Union sent a similar letter either to Ward, or to
any other employee. That date however, being more than 6 months prior to the filing of the
charge herein, the alleged unfair labor practice of violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) is barred
by Section 10 (b) of the Act and I so find.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The operations of the Company, Bloomingdale's constitute and affect trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2 Distributive, Processing and Office Workers of America, Local 3, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3 The Company has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) and (3) and the Union has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (b) (2) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
"It is noted that Ward never left any money with the Union in October and November
1951 or early January 1952.
UPSHUR RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 324, AFL. Case No. 16-CA-
503. November 25, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local Union No. 324, AFL, herein called the Union,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
through the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort
107 NLRB No. 60.
2 08 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Worth , Texas ), issued a complaint dated February 18, 1953,
against Upshur Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation, herein
called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and
Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended ( 61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act . Copies of the
charge and complaint , together with the notice of hearing, were
duly served upon the parties . The Respondent duly filed its
answer to the complaint wherein it denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices and affirmatively challenged the
jurisdiction of the Board over its operations.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Longview , Texas,
on April 6 and 7 , 1953 , before Reeves R. Hilton , the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All
parties were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. All parties were offered full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues . At the hearing , the Respondent
moved for a dismissal of the complaint , which motion was
denied by the Trial Examiner . During the course of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence.
On June 15, 1953 , Trial Examiner Hilton issued his Inter-
mediate Report herein , finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative remedial action . He also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint , and recommended dismissal
of those allegations . Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
To the extent here material , 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 Intermediate Report,
the Respondent ' s exceptions thereto and supporting brief, and
the entire record in the case, and is of the opinion that the
assertion of jurisdiction over the Respondent ' s operations is
not warranted.
The Respondent, whose principal place of business is located
at Gilmer , Texas, is a nonprofit electric cooperative , chartered
by the State of Texas and financed by the Rural Electrification
Administration . It is engaged in the distribution of electric
power to approximately 8,000 members, all of whom reside
within the State of Texas.
The Respondent does not generate any electricity, but
purchases all its power, valued at approximately $54,900
annually , from Southwestern Gas and Electric Company at
connecting points within the State . During 1951 and 1952, the
Respondent also purchased miscellaneous supplies in an
unspecified amount, most of which was received from suppliers
MACK MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 209
within the State, including General Electric, Westinghouse
Electric, and Graybar Companies. During this same period,
all the Respondent's sales, valued in excess of $125,000 during
1951, were made to its members, most of whom are local rural
consumers.
While the Board has heretofore asserted jurisdiction over the
Respondent on the basis of commerce facts then before it,1 we
believe, upon consideration of the above-mentioned facts and
the entire record herein, that the Respondent's operations are
essentially local in character and that, while not entirely
unrelated thereto, they do not have a sufficient impact upon
interstate commerce to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction. 2
Accordingly, we find that it will not effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction in the instant proceeding, and we
shall therefore dismiss the complaint in its entirety. 3
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
1Case No. 16-RC-810. (Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.)
2 Inter- County Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation. 106 NLRB 1316; Coles- Moultrie
Electric Cooperative, 107 NLRB No. 18.
3Member Murdock disagrees with the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds for the reasons
stated in his dissent in the Inter-County Rural Electric Cooperative case but, considering
himself bound by the majority decision therein, has signed this opinion.
MACK MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF
AMERICA
MACK MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and AMALGAM-
ATED PLANT GUARDS, LOCAL 504, AFFILIATED WITH
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED PLANT GUARD WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner . Cases Nos . 4-CA-854 and
4-RC-1665.1 November 25, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 10, 1953, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued
his Intermediate Report in the complaint proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
1In the representation case , involving the same categories of employees concerned in the
complaint case, a Decision and Direction of Election issued on October 17, 1952 (not reported
in printed volumes of Board Decisions ) and a certification on November 6, 1952 . The repre-
sentation case was incorporated by reference in the complaint proceeding . It is herewith
further consolidated for purposes of supplemental decision and order.
107 NLRB No. 59.