Reynolds Metal Co., Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1187 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

REYNOLDS METAL COMPANY, ETC. 1187
At that hearing all interested parties would have the opportunity to
introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to file
briefs, to argue orally, and to participate to the extent necessary to
present their positions. The Board is of the view that in this particu-
lar case these procedures are necessary to enable it to make an in-
formed judgment on the jurisdictional issue which has been raised.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HERESY ORDERED that the petition for declaratory
order herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. The Board's dismissal is
not to be construed as a determination of the merits of the jurisdic-
tional issue.
Reynolds Metal Company and Caribbean Steamship Company,
S.A. and International Maritime Workers Union . Cases Nos.
21-CA-7908, 2-RC-11278, and 2-RC-11320. December 12, 1961
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY ORDER
Pursuant to Section 102.105 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, and Section 101.42 of the Board's Statements of Procedures,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board filed on
June 21, 1961, a petition praying for a declaratory order disposing of
the jurisdictional issue in the aforementioned proceeding. On August
30, 1961, the International Maritime Workers Union, hereinafter
called IMWU, filed a response to the petition aid a brief urging that
the Board assert jurisdiction herein. Thereafter, on September 1,
1961, Reynolds Metal Company and Caribbean Steamship Company,
S.A., hereinafter called Reynolds and Caribbean, respectively, filed
responses to the petition urging that the Board not assert jurisdiction
herein and that it dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. On
November 2, 1961, Reynolds and Caribbean filed briefs in support of
their positions; while the IMWU filed a reply brief on November 27,
1961.
The Board has duly considered the matter. It has decided that its
declaratory order rules, like those for advisory opinions, are designed
primarily to determine questions of jurisdiction by the application of
the Board's discretionary standards to the "commerce operations" of
an employer. However, there are situations where, because of the
complex nature of the operation involved, or because of the inade-
quacy of the record, the procedures contemplated by the Board's
rules for declaratory orders and advisory opinions are difficult or
impossible to apply. This is particularly true where the issue is the
assertion of jurisdiction over foreign flag vessels which almost uni-
formly present involved legal and factual problems. Where, as here,
134 NLRB No. 112.
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there apparently are complicated factual and legal issues, it is desir-
able first to secure a complete record, based upon a full hearing. At
that hearing all interested parties would have the opportunity to in-
troduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to file
briefs, to argue orally, and to participate to the extent necessary to
present their positions. The Board is of the view that in this par-
ticular case these procedures are necessary to enable it to make an in-
formed judgment on the jurisdictional issue which has been raised.
AccoRDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for declaratory
order herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. The Board's dismissal
is not to be construed as a determination of the merits of the jurisdic-
tional issue.
Ozark Hardwood Company and General Drivers and Helpers,
Local 373, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Case No. 26-
CA-72 (formerly 32-CA-72). December 12, 1961
PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
RECOMMENDATION
For reasons hereinafter stated, we are issuing this Proposed Sup-
plemental Decision and Recommendation. Any party may, within
20 days from the date hereof, file with the Board in Washington,
D.C., seven copies of a statement setting forth exceptions thereto, to-
gether with seven copies of a brief in support of said exceptions, and,
immediately upon such filing, serve copies thereof on each of the other
parties.
On November 3, 1960, the Board issued a Decision and Order in
this case in which it found, inter alia, that Ozark Hardwood Com-
pany had violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by its dis-
charge of 27 employees on May 16, 1949.1 The Board thereupon
ordered that Ozark Hardwood Company and its "officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns" make the discriminatees whole for any loss of
pay which they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them.
On March 7, 1952, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
enforced the Board's Order.' Thereafter, the court authorized the
Board to conduct a supplemental proceeding to determine whether
Ozark Hardwood Manufacturing Company, herein called Respond-
ent, was a "successor" of Ozark Hardwood Company and responsible
for remedying its unfair labor practices.
291 NLRB 1443.
2194 F. 2d 963.
134 NLRB No. 121.