East Denver & Lakewood Plumbing & Heating Co.

18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAN 1. The Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] EAST DENVER & LAKEWOOD PLUMBING & HEATING Co. and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL UNION No. 3, AFL, PETITIONER 1 and DRAIN LAYERS LOCAL UNION No. 331, INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS BUILDING AND COM- MON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 30-RC-713,30-RC-716. May 6,1952 Decision and Order Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before Harry Irwig, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby aflirined. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : The Employer repairs, remodels, and installs plumbing and heating systems in Denver, Colorado, and the surrounding territory, within a radius of approximately 75 miles. During 1951, the Employer's total purchases of supplies and materials exceeded $70,000 in value, of which approximately $50,000 was manufactured outside the State and purchased from Denver suppliers. The Employer's sales during the same period were made entirely within the State. The value of goods and services supplied to commercial customers during the year did not exceed $500, although the Employer received $18,000 from the supply of goods and services in the construction of a cottage court, which may serve the tourist trade. The Employer contends that its business is too remotely related to commerce for the Board to assert jurisdiction. Inasmuch as the Em- ployer's operations do not meet any of the criteria established by the Board for the assertion of jurisdiction, we agree that it would not 1 This Petitioner requested that it also be identified as being sometimes called Denver Unity Local No. 3, Plumbers and Gas Fitters United Association. 99 NLRB No. 3. UNION SULPHUR AND OIL CORPORATION 19 effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.2 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the present petitions. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in the case be, and they hereby are, dismissed. 11 2 Cf. Dorn's House of Msracles, Inc., 91 NLRB 632; Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635. UNION SULPHUR AND OIL CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 407, INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-560. May 7,1952 Supplemental D4mision and Direction of Election On January 31, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1 in the above-captioned matter, finding that the unit requested by the Peti- tioner, limited to the Em1or's gas and oil operations in southwest- ern Louisiana, was inappropriate, and that the unit should also in- clude the Employer's employees at its operations in southeastern Texas. Although the Petitioner was willing to 'repre$eht the larger unit found to be appropriate, as its showing of interest was not suffi- cient to justify holding an election in the larger unit, the Board dis- missed the petition. On April 1, 1952, the Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, in which it alleged that it now has obtained a sufficient number of designations to entitle it to participate in an election among the Em- ployer's employees in the larger unit. The Board having determined administratively that the Petitioner's showing of interest is sufficient under its Rules and Regulations to warrant a direction of election in this proceeding, and having con- sidered the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and the Employer's reply thereto, the motion is hereby granted. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board further finds : 2 Union Sulphur and Oil Corporation, 97 NLRB No. 236. s The issues concerning the unit and the contentions of the parties were fully litigated at the hearing. The Employer does not contend that, since the hearing , there has been any change of conditions or circumstances affecting the employees concerned , or that it Is in possession of newly discovered evidence not available at the hearing. The Board has held that there is no Impropriety in making a unit determination upon a motion for reconsideration where the Employer is in no way prejudiced by such action . Foreman c6 Clark, Inc., 98 NLRB 530 Under the circumstances . we believe that It would serve no useful purpose and would not be In the public Interest to require the Petitioner to file a new petition . Cf. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 98 NLRB 87. 99 NLRB No. 5.