Essex County and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters, 969 (1951)

Extract

---

Essex County and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters, 969 (1951)

ESSEX COUNTY, VICINITY DIST. COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, ETC. 969

ESSEX COUNTY AND VICINITY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, AFL,

AND PAINTERS COUNCIL NUMBER 10, AFL and FAIRMOUNT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. Cases Nos. 2-CB-94, 2-CB--97, and 2-CB112., August6,1951

Decision and Order On February 24, 1950, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Carpenters had engaged in certain unfair labor practices. in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) '(A), 8 (b) (2),.

and 8 (b) (3) .of the Act 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 Carpenters filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report..

On September 11, 1950, the Board reopened the record and remanded the case to the Regional Director for. the Second Region for the limited purpose of receiving evidence as to the purchases of the Employer and its subcontractors. and.suppliers during the year 1949.

Thereafter,. the parties filed with the Board a stipulation dated February 19, 1951, in which they agreed upon certain facts concerning these 1949 purchases but reserved their right to file exceptions and briefs before the Board. The stipulation was referred to the Trial Examiner. On April 4, 1951, Trial Examiner Scharnikow issued a.

Supplemental Intermediate Report, attached hereto, recommending, that the complaint be dismissed on, the ground the Employer's operations do not meet the criteria established by the Board for the asser-tion of jurisdiction., The Employer thereupon filed exceptions to the Supplemental Intermediate Report with a supporting brief while, the Carpenters filed. a brief in support of the Supplemental Intermediate Report.

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. Therulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Supplemental Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs filed to both Reports, and the entire record in the case.

The Board hereby adopts the findings, but rejects the conclusions of the Supplemental Intermediate Report for the reasons noted hereinafter. The Board further adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Intermediate Report with the additions and modifications noted below :

1. On the entire record, the Board finds that Fairmount Contruction Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the. Act_ 95 NLRB No. 113.

'970 - DECISIONS OF; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the Supplemental Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner con-eluded that the direct and' indirect inflow, of . materials to the Fairmount Construction Company's Ivy Hill project did not, either separately or in the combination of their percentages, satisfy the Board's :minimum policy requirements for the exercise of its jurisdiction. We -do not agree. The Ivy Hill project, as originally contemplated, was to consist of the construction of 600 dwelling units, primarily 2-family homes, for an estimated total value of approximately $6,000,000. Less 'than one-fourth of these units had been completed by May 1949 when the original hearing in this case commenced as the project was inter= :tupted in the middle of May 1948, by a strike which is the subject of -the unfair labor practice charges in this case. Direct inflow of materials to the project from sources outside. the State of New Jersey amounted, in value, to approximately $72,724 in 1947, $ 289,656 in 1948, and $40,763 in 1949.1 During the period between Match 1947 and May 1949, Fairmount and. its subcontractors and suppliers purr chased from dealers and suppliers located within the State of New Jersey. goods originating outside that State,' which amounted' to ap.proximately $550,000 in value and, in the year 1949 alone, to $190,000 a The Trial Examiner, in the Supplemental Intermediate Report, was correct in the finding that the direct and indirect inflow of goods to the Fairmount Construction Company and the Ivy Hill project in no' -yearly period equaled the minimum amounts set by the Board as '-standards for the assertion of jurisdiction on the basis of inflow .3 In the absence of other considerations, the conclusion reached by the 'Trial Examiner that the complaint should therefore be dismissed is correct. The Board, however, in enunciating the standards by which it.would determine whether the policies of the Act would be effectuated by asserting jurisdiction, did not intend that the criteria which were adopted must be satisfied in the most strict and literal sense.

1 The dollar valuations of direct inflow for the years 1948 and 1949 are herein given as found by the Trial Examiner in the Supplemental Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner; however, erred in that Report in the statement that no computation was available for such inflow during t...

See the full content of this document

---