Cummer-Graham Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 175 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

CUMMRR-GRAHAM COMPANY 175
allegation that the Congress of Industrial Organizations, with which
the charging Union was affiliated, was not in compliance with the
filing requirement of Section 9 (h) of the Act at the time of the issu-
ance of the complaint.
In accordance with the rulings of law contained in N. L. R. B. v.
Highland Park Manufacturing Company, 71 S. Ct. 758, and
N. L. R. B. v. J. I. Case Company, 189 F. 2d 599 (C. A. 8), and upon
the basis of our administrative determination of the fact that the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, with which the charging Union
was affiliated, was not in compliance with the filing requirements of
Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act when the complaint was issued
in this proceeding, we shall grant the Respondent's motion to dismiss.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO . Cases Nos. 16-C-1540 and 16-C-1541. July
13, 1951
Order Vacating Decision and Dismissing Complaint
On June 30, 1950, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding.' Thereafter, on May 14, 1951, the United
States Supreme Court, in N. L. R. B. v. Highland Park Manufactur-
ing Company, determined that the term "national or international
labor organization" as used in Section 9 (h) of the Act encompasses
parent federations. Accordingly, the Board, on June 12, 1951, issued
a notice to show cause why its Decision and Order herein should not
be vacated, and the complaint dismissed, because the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations had not meL the filing requirements of Section
9 (h) of the Act at the time the complaint issued.
On July 2, 1951, the International Woodworkers of America, CIO,
filed a response to the notice to show cause. The Board has consid-
ered this response, and finds that sufficient cause has not been shown
why the Decision and Order should not be vacated and the complaint,
issued on November 2, 1948, dismissed. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the aforesaid Decision and Order be,
and it hereby is, vacated and set aside; and
90 NLRB 722.
95) NLRB No 32.
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed, on the ground that the charging labor organization, Interna-
tional Woodworkers of America, CIO, was not in compliance with
Section 9 (h) of the Act at the time the complaint issued.
ENGINEERS LIMITED PIPELINE COMPANY and WILLIAM G. O'TOOLE
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMB-
ING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA,
LOCAL UNION No. 598, AFL and WILLIAM G. O'ToOLE. Cases Nos.
19-CA-347 and 19-CB-1'7. July 1'7, 1951
Decision and Order
On March 21,1951, Trial Examiner Irving Rogosin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
Lake certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
Inediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondents had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor
practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with re-
spect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent Company and
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs. The Respondent Company, pursuant to leave of
the Board, also filed a reply brief, and the Respondent Union filed a.
"Statement of Counsel for' Respondent Union." 1
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudical error was committed.3 The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the modifications and exceptions
noted below.
1 As the record , exceptions , and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of
the parties , the Company's request for oral argument is denied.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection - with this case to a - three-member panel
[ Members Houston , Murdock , and Styles].
3 Over the Respondents ' objections , the Trial Examiner received in evidence, as an
admission binding on the Union only , a letter written by the Union 's attorney to the field
examiner during the course of the latter ' s investigation of the case , narrating his version
of the events preceding the filing of the charges herein. The Trial Examiner , however,
did not rely on this document in making his findings . In these circumstances, and in
view of the fact that we, too, do not base our findings on this document , we consider It
unnecessary to determine the admissibility of the letter . For this reason, the Trial
Examiner ' s fiction In receiving the letter in evidence is not prejudicial.
95 NLRB No. 29.