Ceco Steel Products Corp.

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