East Denver & Lakewood Plumbing & Heating Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 18 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

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.