Service Printers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1944

54 N.L.R.B. 1082 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter Of SERVICE PRINTERS, INCORPORATED and CHICAGO
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 16, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
Case No. 13-R-2119, Decidedeci February 4, 1944
Mr. I. Harvey Levinson, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. John J. Pilch, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Wallace E. Royster, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upori a petition duly filed by Chicago Typographical Union No. 16,
affiliated with International Typographical, Union, herein called the
Union, alleging that, a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of Service Printers,
Incorporated, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the Company, the
National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hear-
ing, upon due -notice, before George S. Freudenthal, Jr.,'Trial Ex-
aminer. Said hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on December 8,
1943. The Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During
the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the petition upon the
ground that the allegations therein were not proved by competent
testimony. Actually, the Company denies only that the Union repre-
sents a substantial number of the Company's employees. For reasons
appearing in Section III, infra, the motion is denied. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
errror and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportu-
nity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Service Printers, Incorporated, is an Illinois corporation engaged
in various types of printing, including letterheads , magazines, and
54 N. L. R. B, No. 161.
1082
SERVICE PRINTERS, INCORPORATED 1083
catalogs , with its-plant and offices located at 701 South LaSalle Street,,
Chicago, Illinois. During the 3-month period ending November 15,
1943 , the Company purchased raw materials valued at approximately,
$10,000, for use in its operations, of which more than 90 percent
was shipped to the Company from points outside Illinois. During
the same period, the Company's sales amounted -to approximately
$60,000. While none of the finished product was shipped directly
out of the State, more than 40 percent of such product was ultimately
sent to points outside Illinois. The Company does not contest the
jurisdiction of the Board, and we find that its operations affect com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, is a labor organization
affiliated with: International Typographical Union, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On October 20, 1943, the Union requested recognition of the Com-
pany as exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
composing room. The Company refused to accede to, this -request
unless or until the Union is certified as such representative by the
Board.
A statement of the Regional Director introduced into evidence at
the hearing indicates that the Union represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act:
IV. THE APPROPRIATE' UNIT
The petition requests a unit of "all hand compositors, linotype
operators, proofreaders, stonemen, including apprentices, foremen,
and assistant foremen and excluding" all others."
'The Regional Director stated that the Union submitted 13 designations all bearing
apparently genuine original signatures Eleven of the designations bore names of persons
whose names appear on the Company 's pay roll of November 6, 1943. There are approxi-
mate]; 23 employee s in the appropiiate unit
The contention of the Company that the representation of the Union among the employees
may have become unsubstantial due to recent resignations and discharges , raises no sub-
stantial issue. The submission of designations is required , not as precise proof of the
number of employees represented , but only as part of an administrative investigation to
determine whether there is sufficient evidence to entertain a petition. This investigation
is wholly within the discretion of the Board and is not subject to attack by the parties to the
proceeding . See Matter of General Motors Corporation, Oldsmobile Division, Lansing, Mich-
igan, 54 N . L R. B. 713 , and cases cited therein
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It appears from the record that the unit requested includes em-
ployees in the occupational categories customarily represented by the
Union in the Chicago area. For the past 37 years, the Union has had
master collective bargaining agreements with the Franklin Associa-
tion, an Association of employing printers in the Chicago area, which
have provided for the inclusion of foremen in the bargaining unit
in all union shops.2 The record shows that approximately 435 print-
4ng establishments in and near Chicago have direct-contracts with the
Union, are members of the Association, or otherwise give effect to the
terms of the master contract including the provision for union mem-
bership of foremen. In its brief, the Company argues that the fore-
man in question here is so clearly a representative of management as
to be ineligible for inclusion in the bargaining unit under the doctrine
expressed by the Board in the Maryland Drydock case .3
The question of the inclusion of 'foremen in bargaining units in the
printing trades has had the recent attention of the Board. In the
Hall case,4 we stated that the Maryland Drydock rule was not intended
to disturb the collective bargaining rights which have been tradition-
ally exercised by foremen in the printing trades, and in the more recent
Union Bags and Country Life e cases we have adhered in this respect
to the rationale 'f the Hall decision. However, in the Country Life
case, cited above, we excluded from the bargaining unit the general
foreman who, in addition to. supervisory authority, possessed manage-
ment responsibilities, conferred with other department heads to plan
the progress of the Company's business, and was expected to familiarize
himself with the work of other departments and plants. Essentially,
the Company argues, the duties, responsibilities, and authority of the
foreman in the composing room involved herein are similarly mana-
gerial . The record does not so convince us. The foreman 'in the
Company's composing room performs manual duties and is listed on
the pay roll as a hand compositor. It is true that he may hire, promote,
or discharge those working under him, but such authority is tradition-
ally exercised by foremen in the printing trades. There is no evi-
dence that his authority extends to matters of business policy or that
his duties are managerial as well as supervisory. We conclude then,
that the foreman in the composing room, while possessing supervisory
authority, is nonetheless within the class of foremen traditionally in-
cluded in bargaining units in the printing trades and we shall include
him here.
2 It does not appear that the Company is a member of the Association.
3 Matter of Maryland Drydock Company, 49 N. L. R. B 733.
4 Matter of W F. Hall Printing Co, 51 N. L. R B. 640.
5 Matter o f Union Bag d Paper Corporation, 52 N. L R. B. 591.
6 Matter of Country Life Press Corporation, 51 N L R. B 1362.
SERVICE PRINTERS, INCORPORATED 1085
There are no further disputes as to the inclusion of employee cate-
gories, and we find that all employees in the composing room of the
Company, including hand compositors, linotype operators, proof-
readers, lock-up men, line-up men, apprentices, and the foreman, but
excluding all other employees of the Company, constitute a unit ap-,
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
hterein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.'
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Service Printers,
Incorporated, Chicago, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days.
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, acting, in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during,
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by Chicago Typographical.
Union No. 16, affiliated with International Typographical Union, for
the purposes of collective bargaining .
' The Union requests that eligibility to vote be determined by the pay-roll date nearest
the date of _the petition. However, it does not appear that the number of employees in
the unit will change substantially and we find no reason to depart from our usual practice
in this regard.