This is а petition by the National Labor Relations Board for the enforcement of its order directing the resрondent, Cross Poultry Company, to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices, to reinstаte with back pay three employees and to take other action. Respondent resists on the grоund that the Board lacks jurisdiction, claiming that the unfair labor practices were not proved to havе affected interstate commerce.
Respondent operates a plant in Raleigh, North Carolina, where he is engaged in the processing of poultry products. During 1963 respondent produced and sold рoultry products valued in excess of $500,000. These products, however, could not be shipped across stаte lines because they were not federally inspected. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 458(a). It is conceded that no pоultry products produced by the respondent were sold outside North Carolina during the above period.
Most of the products were sold to two corporations that are engaged directly in interstate cоmmerce. The North State Provision Co., a food wholesaler which does an interstate, as well as intrastate business, purchased over $300,000 worth of respondent’s merchandise. Also during this period respondent sold prоducts valued at more than $50,000 to Colonial Stores, Inc., an operator of retail food stores in sevеral states with gross sales in excess of $10,000,000 annually.
Upon the above facts, the Board found that respondent’s activities brought it within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Act. Under section 10 (a) of that Act the Board is empowered “to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice affecting commerce.” Section 2(7) defines “affecting commerce” to mean:
“* * * jn commerce, or burdening or obstructing commerce,
* * * or having led or tending to lead tо a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.”
Pursuant to this grant of authority, the Board has determined, in the light of its experience, that non-retail employers who sell over $50,000 worth of goods to buyers engaged directly in interstate commerce are in a position to affect interstate commerce if their operations are
*167
interrupted by a labor dispute. Siemons Mailing Service,
The respondent first contends that its operations cannot possibly affect interstate commerсe because its products, being uninspected, cannot be moved in such commerce. We cannot agree that an interruption in the supply of an intrastate product could not possibly disrupt a buyer’s interstаte business with resulting obstruction to interstate commerce. It is well established law that the mere fact that respondent’s operations are purely intrastate does not mean that they may not affect interstatе commerce. See, e. g., Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. National Labor Relations Board,
The respondent's further contention is that the Board is not empowered to rely on general jurisdictional rules but must dеtermine in each case, on the basis of substantial evidence, that commerce has been affеcted by the activities of the particular employer. This case-by-case approach to jurisdictional questions has been criticized by scholars
1
and rejected by the Supreme Court. In one instancе the Second Circuit accepted an argument such as that made by the respondent here and remanded an enforcement proceeding to the Board for a factual determination of how a work stoppage at the employer’s place of business would affect commerce. Nationаl Labor Relations Board v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp.,
“Whether or no practices may be deemed by Congress tо affect interstate commerce is not to be determined by confining judgment to the quantitative effect of the activities immediately before the Board. Appropriate for judgment is the fact that the immediate situation is representative of many others throughout the country, the total incidence of which if left unchеcked may well become far-reaching in its harm to commerce.” Polish Nat. Alliance of U. S. of North America v. National Labor Relations Board,322 U.S. 643 , 648,64 S.Ct. 1196 , 1199,88 L.Ed. 1509 (1944).
Indisputably, large sales to buyers engaged in interstate commerсe are within the constitutional reach of Congress. The Board was not in error in finding that respondent’s sales tо North State Provision and Colonial Stores brought its unfair labor practices within the compass of the Act.
Enforcement granted.
Notes
. Sеe Bok, The Regulation of Campaign Tactics in Representation Elections Under the National Labor Relations Act, 78 Harv.L.Rev. 38, 64 (1964); Cox, Federalism in the Law of Labor Relations, 67 Harv.L.Rev. 1297, 1306 (1954)