Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 183 v. National Labor Relations Board

The Respondent’s Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that it would not effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S. C.A. § 151 et seq., for the Respondent to accept jurisdiction in this case, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. The Respondent adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, in a modified form.

The Respondent stated that the employer, Homer W. Robinson, dba Alaska Beverage Co., is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of carbonated beverages in Fairbanks, Alaska. During 1954, its purchases amounted to approximately $75,500, of which 95 per cent was obtained from outside the Territory. The employer’s sales during the same period amounted to approximately $226,000, all of which were made within the Territory.

Since the Intermediate Report was issued in this case, the Respondent’s decision in Conrado Forestier, dba Cantera Providencia, et al., 111 N.L.R.B. 848 , No. 141, decided March 4, 1955, was issued. In that case the Respondent made clear that its jurisdictional standards would be uniformly applied in the Territories…

(concurring).

The result reached by the Trial Examiner, the Board and this Court is correct. However, confusion exists in terminology. Jurisdiction exists by statute. 1 Thereby the Board may consider any case as to a concern doing a substantial amount of business within a territory, irrespective of the impact thereof upon interstate commerce. 2 The Board had the power to act and adjudge in the instant case. But it is equally well established that the exercise of the admitted jurisdiction is not an imperative for the Board. 3 It has the power in administrative discretion to decline to act in a particular case if it believes an adjudication would not effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act. The determination of the Board to accept or decline a particular case should be almost, if not absolutely, conclusive. 4 Comparable administrative discretion is exemplified by the District Attorney who decides whether or not to file an information or by the traffic policeman who ponders whether or not to give a ticket. The use' of the phrase “jurisdictional standards” is utterly misleading. 5 These expressions in the Board’s opinions do not constitute a “rule.” 6 If the Board…