Rochester Metal Products

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1779 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

ROCHESTER METAL PRODUCTS 1779
as the other employees in the existing production and maintenance
unit. They perform the normal duties of maintenance employees.
In view of these facts, including the long history of collective bar-
gaining on an industrial unit basis, we find that none of the Peti-
tioner's proposed units is appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining. Therefore, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in this case be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
ROCHESTER METAL PRODUCTS, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP OPERATED BY
ROBERT S. KERSEY ' and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMO-
BILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
UAW-CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-1804. June 29, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, hearings were held before Ivan C. McLeod,
hearing officer.2 The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearings
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Employer urges in his brief that certain defects in the petition
and alleged irregularities before and at the hearing prevent the
Board from asserting jurisdiction in the instant case.
The original petition named the Employer as "Rochester Metal
Products Company." It appears that the correct name of the Em-
ployer is "Rochester Metal Products." Copies of the petition and
notice of hearing were served upon the Employer at his address in
Rochester, Indiana. Subsequent to this, the superintendent of the
Employer's Rochester, Indiana, plant, and a secretary attended the
informal conferences held by the Board's Regional Office prior to the
formal hearing and cooperated with the Board by furnishing informa-
tion in regard to the operations of the Employer. Immediately be-
fore the formal hearing, however, the Employer advised the Board's
Regional Office that the company named in the petition and notice of
hearing was nonexistent, and that, because the Employer had no con-
nection with the named company, it would not attend the formal
hearing.
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the reopened hearing.
' A hearing was held before Hearing Officer McLeod on March 20, 1951 . Subsequently
the Board on its own motion reopened the hearing . The reopened hearing was held before
the same hearing officer on April 27, 1951.
94 NLRB No. 62.
953841-52-vol. 94-114
1780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the formal hearing the Employer's name was amended to read
"Rochester Metal Products and/or Rochester Metal Products, Inc."
The Employer urges that the Board is without authority to proceed
in the instant case, because the petition and notice of hearing not hav-
ing properly designated it, the service of copies of the petition and
notice was a nullity. We find no merit to these contentions. The
facts recited indicate clearly that the Employer was sufficiently ap-
prised that the petition and notice of hearing served upon it con-
cerned its operations; 3 and the petition as amended at the hearing
cured all technical defects and properly initiated the investigation
concerning the representation of the Employer's employees.
Later the Board on its own motion reopened the hearing to adduce
additional evidence in regard to the operations of the company. The
Employer was served only with the notice of the reopened hearing.
The Employer urges that the Board's failure to serve a copy of the
petition with the notice of reopened hearing is a defect which prevents
the Board from asserting jurisdiction. At the reopened hearing the
Employer appeared and participated fully without any objection.
It did not claim surprise nor did it make any showing of prejudice.
The Employer was served with a copy of the original petition and
notice of hearing. Neither the Act nor the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations require that a petition accompany a notice of reopened hearing.
In view of these facts, we find this contention of the Employer to be
without merit.
The Employer finally urges, as an irregularity, the fact that sub-
penas were issued at the request of the hearing officer presiding over
these proceedings and not at the request of a party to the proceedings,
as required by the Act and the Board's Rules and Regulations. We
find these contentions to be without merit. We believe that Section 11
of the Act as amended does not deprive the Board of the investigatory
means necessary to fulfill the functions with which it has been en-
trusted by the Act. In addition, the term "party" is defined by Sec-
tion 102.8 of the Rules and Regulations to include the "Regional Di-
rector." The hearing officer conducting a hearing under Section 9 of
the Act is an agent of the Regional Director.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of iron castings at
its plant in Rochester, Indiana. During the year 1950 it purchased
raw materials valued in excess of $100,000, of which 17 percent was
3 See LaSalle Crittenden Press, Inc., 72 NLRB 1166 and cases cited therein ; Vulcan
Forging Company, 85 NLRB 621, 625-626; Schuylkill Products Company, Inc., 73
NLRB 340.
THE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION 1781
procured from out of State. During the same period its revenue from
the sale of its products, all of which were sold to firms within the
State, exceeded $200,000.
During 1950 the product of the Employer was purchased in its
entirety by the following firms for use in the manufacture of their
own products in the amounts indicated : The Great States Corporation
purchased products from the Employer in excess of $100,000; The
American Lawn Mower Company purchased products in excess of
$25,000; and The Ray Glow, Inc., products in excess of $25,000.'
Each of the afore-mentioned companies annually ships products
valued in excess of $25,000 out of State.
Upon these facts we find that the operations of the Employer affect
commerce within the meaning of the Act and further that it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction
over this Employer.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find that the following employees of the Employer consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees employed at the Em-
ployer's Rochester, Indiana, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, confidential employees, guards, superintend-
ents, foremen, and all other supervisors as defined by the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Whether or not the sales of the Employer's product to the three named companies
were consummated and title passed within the State does not determine the effect that
the Employer's operations have on interstate commerce.
6 See Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
TIIE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO,' PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-827. June 39, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William A. Mc-
1 The Petitioner herein was originally designated as United Steelworkers of America,
District 25, CIO. On June 22, 1951, the Petitioner moved to delete the reference to
District 25 in its designation. As United Steelworkers of America, CIO, appears to be
94 NLRB No. 240.