Ceco Steel Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 668 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of CECO STEEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and
RALPH C. LANNING, AN EMPLOYEE , PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF BLACKSMITHS , DROP FORGERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL
UNION No. 58, A. F. L., UNION
Case No. 2-RD-7.-Decided March 15, 1948
Mr. J. Edmund Grogan, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Ronald W. Had-
ley, of Hillside, N. J., for the Employer.
Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld, by Mr. Sidney Birnbaum, of Newark,
N. J., for the Petitioner.
Mr. William J. Kennedy, of New York City, for the Union.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, hearing in this case
was held at New York City, on November 24, 1947, before Robert
Silagi, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Ceco Steel Products Corporation, a Nebraska corporation maintain-
ing general offices in Chicago, Illinois, and numerous branch offices and
plants throughout the United States, is engaged in the manufacture,
sale, distribution, and erection of steel building products. We are here
concerned only with the Employer's plant located at Hillside, New
Jersey. During the 12-month period preceding the hearing, the Em-
ployer purchased more than $1,000,000 worth of raw materials, of
which over 50 percent represented shipments to the Employer's plants
from sources outside the States in which the plants are located. During
the same period, the Employer manufactured more than $1,000,000
worth of finished products, a substantial amount of which was shipped
from its plants to points outside the States in which the plants are
located.
76 N. L. R. B., No. 103.
668
CECO STEEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION 669
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE PARTIES INVOLVED
The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union
is no longer the representative of the Employer's employees, as defined
in Section 9 (a) of the amended Act.
The Union, a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, has been recognized by the Employer as the repre-
sentative of its employers, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the amended
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On December 19, 1946, the Employer and the Union signed a col-
lective bargaining contract to terminate on December 31, 1947, unless
automatically renewed.' On September 27, 1947, the Petitioner filed
the present petition with the Board. Thereafter, on December 22
and 23, 1947, after the close of the hearing herein, the Petitioner re-
quested leave from the Board to withdraw the petition herein. There
being no showing of prejudice to an intervenor, the request is granted
and the case will be closed.2
ORDER
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner's request for leave to with-
draw the petition for-decertification in the above-entitled matter, be,
and it hereby is, granted, and the case is hereby closed.
1 The Petitioner and the Employer contended at the hearing that this contract was not
automatically renewed in 1947 , whereas the Union claimed that it was renewed , and there-
fore bars a present election In view of our disposition of the case hereinafter, we find it
unnecessary to resolve this question.
z Matter of Underwriters Salvage Company of New York, 76 N. L. R. B ., 601. In the
foregoing case, Members Reynolds and Gray indicated their disagreement with the majority
of the Board in permitting withdrawal of the petition in a decertification proceeding under
circumstances similar to those in the instant case. However , inasmuch as the majority
position now has the status of law , they deem themselves bound thereby , and consequently
find it unnecessary herein to reiterate their prior dissenting views