National Labor Relations Board v. WH KISTLER S. CO., 2290.

• Decision Date: 10 October 1941
• Docket Number: No. 2290.,2290.
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. W. H. KISTLER STATIONERY CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

122 F.2d 989 (1941)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. W. H. KISTLER STATIONERY CO.

No. 2290.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

October 10, 1941.

Paul E. Kuelthau, Regional Atty., of Denver, Colo. (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Hilda D. Shea and Walter B. Wilbur, all of Washington, D. C., Attys., for National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for petitioner.

Irving Hale, Jr., of Denver, Colo. (M. A. Lewis and J. B. Grant, both of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for respondent.

Before BRATTON, HUXMAN, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order directed against the respondent, the W. H. Kistler Stationery Company, directing it to cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with Denver Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 40, herein called the Union, as the exclusive representative of all its printing pressmen and assistants in the offset, job and cylinder departments of respondent's printing department, and directing that upon request it bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in this department. Respondent's position is that it is not engaged in commerce as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., and that therefore the Board is without jurisdiction to issue the order. There is no conflict in the evidence. The facts were all stipulated and the only question presented is one of jurisdiction.

Respondent is a Colorado corporation, with its principal place of business at Denver, Colorado. Its business is divided into four departments: printing, furniture, mimeograph, and stationery, all conducted under one roof. The printing department is the only one unionized. Respondent's gross sales approximate $1,000,000 per year. The printing department alone accounts for approximately $330,000 or one-third of respondent's total business. Of the amount of business done by the department in question, twenty-five per cent, or $82,500, comes from sales to companies directly engaged in interstate business. $38,610 of this amount is shipped directly by respondent to consignees in states other than Colorado, and the balance, in the amount of $43,890, is delivered to concerns in Colorado and is in part distributed by them to branch offices in other states. Raw materials used in the printing department shipped into Colorado from without the state constitute ten per cent of a total of $100,000 of raw materials purchased annually for this department. Over two-thirds of respondent's annual business of $1,000,000 depends upon merchandise imported into Colorado.

The perimeter of the National Labor Relations Act is by now quite clearly defined and established by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and our function, when a question of jurisdiction is presented, is to determine whether the business under consideration lies within the outer borders of this field as established by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

The principles which must guide us in resolving the questions presented are clear and well defined. The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce is plenary and extends to all such commerce, both great and small. Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 187 U.S. 617, 23 S.Ct. 214, 47 L.Ed. 333; National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601, 606, 59 S.Ct. 668, 83 L.Ed. 1014. The extent of the power over interstate commerce which Congress intended to exercise by the passage of the ...