Motion Picture Machine Operators, 1057 (1973)

MOTION PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS

Motion Picture Machine Operators Local Union 330,

AFL-CIO and Western Hills Theatres, Inc. Case 16-CP-82

July 12, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING

AND PENELLO

On February 21, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Joseph I. Nachman at the hearing in this proceeding sustained Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety because the Employer herein does not meet the jurisdictional standards established by the Board. On March 12, 1973, the Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Discussion and Order Dismissing Complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Order.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the record and the Administrative Law Judge's Order in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions and Order.' ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.

1 The General Counsel, in his exceptions, urges that the Board presume that the Employer would meet our jurisdictional standards because Respondent's picketing, which began on the first day of business, prevented the Employer from generating sales which would be a fair and representative indication of its capability to do business. This same contention was rejected by the Board in Local 1199, Drug and Hospital Union, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, (666 Cosmetics, Inc.), 198 NLRB No. 83 (ALJD), and we reject it here.

DISCUSSION AND ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Administrative Law Judge: Trial of this proceeding opened before me at Fort Worth, Texas, on February 21, 1973. After obtaining from counsel the facts with respect to jurisdiction, I sustained Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety because the admitted facts established that Company's volume of busi1057 ness did not meet the Board's standards for the assertion of jurisdiction in cases such as that here presented.

With respect to jurisdiction the complaint alleges:

Western Hills...