Screw Machine Products Co.

In the Matter of C. A. BRAUKMAN AND LUCILE A. BRAUKMAN, D/B/A SCREW MACHINE PRODUCTS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 1, PETITIONER Case No. 30-RC-107.-Decided July 11, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Denver, Colorado, on April 18, 1949, before Clyde F. Wears, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds : The business of the Employer C. A. Braukman and Lucile A. Braukman, a partnership doing business as Screw Machine Products Company, operate a machine shop at Denver, Colorado. The Employer makes, on order, small machine parts for its customers." The Board recently declined to assert jurisdiction over the Employ- er's operations.2 The Petitioner is now seeking a reconsideration of the jurisdictional issue, in connection with which it adduced the fol- lowing supplemental data. During the first 11 months of 1948, the Employer's total purchases of tools and supplies were valued at approximately $5,380, of which approximately $1,597 represented shipments to the Employer from points outside Colorado. The principal raw materials used by the Employer are steel, brass, and aluminum. During 1947 and 1948, the Employer purchased raw materials valued, respectively, at approximately $29,692 and $21,759; ' Items produced by the Employer are used by its customers in their own production and assemblies . Examples of such items are : parts for gun sights ; parts for fishing reels . and rods ; parts for camera photo flood synchronizing devices ; pipe and hose joints and fittings ; rivets ; bits for horse harnesses ; screws ; knobs ; and cams. See Matter of Screw Machine Products Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 980. 2 Matter of Screw Machine Products Company, supra , decided September 24, 1948. 85 N. L. R. B., No. 20. 129 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of these, materials valued, respectively, at approximately $19,644 and $9,850 were shipped to the Employer from points outside Colorado. During the first 11 months of 1948, the Employer sold finished prod- ucts valued at approximately $85,673; of these products valued at approximately $2,115 were shipped to points outside Colorado.3 Although it now appears that the Employer's operations are not Wholly unrelated to commerce, we again conclude that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction because of the essentially local character of the operations. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting: Upon the facts brought forth in the reopened record, we would assert jurisdiction in this case. Here, as in the Tower case (7-RC- 455) decided this day), the Company is engaged in manufacturing machine parts. Its products are sold, in the substantial amounts dis- closed in footnote 3 of the majority opinion, to other companies that incorporate them into their own products which are then shipped to points outside the State of Colorado. We do not think that such operations are "essentially local," or that the Board should extend the use of that term to enterprises of this character. 8 During 1947 and 1948, the Employer sold finished products valued at more than $100,000 to Colorado customers who, in turn , incorporated such items in their own production. More than 50 percent of such production by the Employer ' s customers was shipped to points outside Colorado. The records of the Board show that the Board has asserted jurisdiction over 10 of the 36 firms cited at the hearing as "included among" the Employer 's customers.