Snap-On Tools Corporation

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION

Docket 7116. Order and Opinion, Apr. 4, 1960 Order denying respondent’s petition for rehearing on decision vacating hearing examiner's dismissal in part and remanding case with direction to deny motion to dismiss in toto.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

By the Commisston:

In our decision of January 21, 1960, we granted an interlocutory appeal by counsel supporting the complaint, vacated the hearing examiner’s order insofar as it granted in part the respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case, and remanded the case with the direction that he deny such motion in toto. Respondent’s petition for rehearing requests that our decision be withdrawn and that the appeal be reheard and decided on the specific issues deemed controlling by opposing counsel and duly argued in their briefs.

Respondent contends in its petition that the Commission improperly decided something not before it on appeal. When considering such appeal however, the Commission made its own independent analysis of the issue basically presented and controlling to decision in the then posture of the case; and it thereupon decided the appeal on the basis of applicable legal principles. Moreover, the petition makes no showing as to the Commission's aforementioned analysis being erroneous or of invalidity respecting legal standards applied by it.

The petition’s additional argument that substantive law relating to formal appellate procedures forecloses the Commission from deciding appeals on issues other than those deemed governing by counsel also is rejected. Such principle has no application whatsoever to interlocutory appeals in administrative proceedings wherein no final dispositions of cases are being made. Nor is it necessary to grant a rehearing because the per se illegality of respondent’s contract provisions may ultimately become the prime issue in this proceeding. The petition’s allegations on this score are in part based on assumptions that the hearing examiner subsequently may find that all issues except that relating to the exclusive territory provision are rendered moot by reason of certain revisions and modifications by respondent in its dealer contracts. However, our prior decision duly recognized that the question of maintenance of exclusive territories, including the extent to which activities in that respect may have contributed to illegality mhering in the respondent’s dealer arrangements, was one more appropriately to be considered upon final disposition of the case. The issuance during adversary proceedings of advisory opinions in the nature contemplated in the petition would encourage fragmentary submission of cases for decision, make for piecemeal decisions and inevitably result in unjustifiable delays in the disposition of Commission proceedings.

Respondent also claims prejudicial or reversable error attending the Commission’s failure to hear its counsel on oral argument in opposition to the appeal. Because the record and briefs afforded adequate basis for informed decision on the merits of the appeal, the Commission exercised its sound discretion and determined that oral argument should not be granted. The same holds true respecting the petition’s instant request for oral hearing and it is likewise denied. , The petition for rehearing is denied accordingly. Commissioner Kern did not participate in the decision herein.

ORDER

The Commission having determined, for reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, that the respondent’s petition for rehearing on the Commission’s decision of January 21, 1960, should be denied:

It is ordered. That said petition be, and it hereby is, denied. Commissioner Kern not participating.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, ETC. 1685