United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of The Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1480 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Second Region in writing as to what steps the Respondent has taken,
to comply with the terms of the Decision and Determination of`
Dispute.
LOCAL 428, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF
THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, A. F. L., AND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY and NICHOLAS PALLADINO,
CHARLES PALLADINO, FRED PALLADINO, WILLIAM PALLADINO, AND,
FRANK PALLADINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS, TRADING AS
N. PALLADINOO BROTHERS. Case No. 4-CB-63. August 30, 1951
Decision and Order
On March 9, 1951, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief, and
the General Counsel filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock].
The Respondents' request for oral argument is denied, as the record
and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions
of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
i ulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case. We find merit in the Respondents' contention that the Board, in
the exercise of its discretion, should decline to assert jurisdiction in
this case.
Palladino, the charging party and the employer of the employees
involved herein, is engaged in the plumbing and heating business
in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, and does an annual gross business of
approximately $138,000, all of which is local. Palladino's annual
purchases amount to approximately $73,500, of which purchases worth
approximately $10,800 are shipped directly to Palladino from outside
the State. Palladino was hired as a subcontractor to install the plumb-
ing and heating system in a supermarket being constructed for Ameri-
95 NLRB No. 208.
LOCAL 42:8 UNITED ASSOC. OFJ'OURNEYMEN-AND ^APPRENTICES 148
can'Stores Company by Murrell. Construction Company. Palladino's
contract on this project was for $2,122.20. Palladino is not a member
of General Ruilding Contractors Association.
Murrell, a- general contractor in Pennsylvania, has- an annual gross
business of approximately $500,000. Its annual purchases amount
to approximately $45,00.0. Almost all these purchases are made
from local suppliers, but originate outside the State. In May 1949,.
Murrell began a project outside the State valued at approximately
$20,600, and completed this project in January 1950. During 1948,.
Murrell performed construction work for American Stores Company
for contract -prices. totaling approximately $244,900. Some of these
projects were not completed until 1949. In 1949, it began construction.
of the Pottstown supermarket,, where the present case arose, for a
total contract ;price 'of $98,,800.. This contract price includes pa?ymentss
to various subcontractors totaling approximately $76,000. The total,
cost of materials for the Pottstown supermarket was approximately
$43,000, of which materials worth about $9,000 were brought directly
from outside the State. The Pottstown project was completed in 1950_
Murrell is a member of General Building Contractors Association.
On the basis of these facts, we find that none of the tests for
the- assertion of jurisdiction under the criteria . recently laid down
by the Board have been met, and, accordingly, that it would not:
effectuate the purposes of the-Act to assert jurisdiction in the instant
proceeding.' We shall therefore dismiss the complaint.
Order
IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint issued herein against the,
Respondents, Local 428, United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United'
States.and Canada, A. F. L., and Building and Construction Trades:
Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting :
The alleged 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) unfair labor practices in
this case involve the validity of a contract between the Respondents
and the Association, which has approximately 163 members and, ac-
cording to a stipulation in the record, is in "interstate commerce."
Under the terms of the contract, members of the Association ap-
parently agreed to employ "either directly or indirectly" none but
members of the Respondents. In effect, the contract purports to
1 The relevant criteria established by the Board for asserting jurisdiction are set forth
in Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618; Hollow Tree
Lumber Company, 91 NLRB'835 ; Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638; Dorn's House
of Miracles, Inc., 91 NLRB 632; and The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625.
1482 DECISIONS. OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cover all individuals who work on construction projects 'undertaken
by association members, including employees of subcontractors -who
are not parties to the agreement. Indeed, one of the particular unfair
labor practices alleged concerns the invocation of this contract by the
Respondents because Murrell, an association member, let a subcontract
to Palladino who employed nonunion help. ' Such a controversy is .
representative of the type of labor dispute involving the legality of
the contract which could result in a complete cessation of all con-
struction work by association members. It can hardly be denied
that under these circumstances the impact on commerce would be very
substantial. In my opinion, therefore, it is necessary to -consider the
commerce facts with respect to the Association in determining whether
to exercise jurisdiction and upon the assumption that the Association
is :engaged in commerce, as,conceded by the parties, I would ass8rt
jurisdiction.z
2 See Vaughn Bowen, et al., 93 NLRB 1147 ; Federal Stores Division of Spiegel, Inc.,-
it, at., 91 NLRB 647 ; Carpenter & Skaer, Inc., et al., 90 NLRB 417.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Nicholas Palladino, Charles Palladino, Fred Pal-
ladino, William Palladino, and Frank Palladino, individually and as copartners,
trading as N. Palladino Brothers, herein referred to as Palladino, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called Gen-
eral Counsel and the Board, on behalf of the Board by the acting Regional Di-
rector for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) on August 30, 1950,
issued a complaint against Local 428, United Association of 'Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, A. F. L., and Building and Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia
and Vicinity, herein respectively called Local 428 and Council and collectively
as the Respondents, alleging that the 'Respondents had engaged and were en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section.
8 (b) (1) (A) and (2), and Section 2 (6) and (7)1 of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the
charges were duly served upon the Respondents ; copies of the complaint and
notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondents, Palladino, and Mur-
rell Construction Company, Inc., herein called Murrell.
With respect to unfair labor practices,. the complaint, as amended at the
hearing, alleges that:.(1) Palladino and American' Stores Company, herein!
called Acme, are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act ; and (2),
pursuant to an existing illegal - contract between the Council and General
Building Contractors Association, Incorporated,' herein called the Association,
iAlthough the complaint. nowhere specifically refers to Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act, the Trial Examiner considers the oversight inadvertent. The complaint, in its
closing allegation, alleges that activities theretofore described "have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and ,the free flow of com-
merce," language akin to that in Section 2 (6) and (7) and, in the opinion of the Trial
Examiner, effectively invoking the two subdivisions of said section.
2 Also known as, and named in the complaint, before amendment to conform to proof,
as Associated General Contractors of Aemirca, Philadelphia Chapter.
LOCAL 428, UNITED ASSOC. OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES 1483
in September 1949 the Respondents Local 428 and Council caused Murrell, a:
general contractor, to cancel a subcontract with Palladino, thereby causing:
Palladino to terminate the employment of its employees because said em-
ployees were.-not members of the Respondent Local 428.
Thereafter the Respondents filed a joint answer, in which they denied the-
commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Pottstown and Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania,.on December 5 and 6, 1950, before the undersigned duly designated
Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondents were represented
by counsel. Both counsel participated in the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing upon the issues. • Ruling was reserved upon the Respond-
ents' motion to dismiss the complaint ; disposition of said actions is made in,,
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations below. Briefs were received
from the General Counsel and the Respondents bn February 12, 1951.
Upon the entire record, and from his observation of the witness, the Trial?
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF- THE ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS
The Association, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is an organization comprised'
of 83 general contractors and about 80 subcontractors and building material
dealers engaged in the building-construction industry in what is known as the,
"Philadelphia Five-County Area," which includes the city of Philadelphia and
5 surrounding counties.
Its purpose, among other things, as described in its bylaws, is :
To establish various standard contracts and to coordinate such contracts
so that the respective interests of owners, General Contractors, subcontrac-
tors, manufacturers and••,dealers may be.,properly protected.
Article X, Section 1, of the same bylaws, reads in part :
The President shall appoint a Labor Conference Committee . . . The du-
ties of this Committee shall be to confer with similar committees from
Labor Organizations and to pass on all questions that may arise between
this Association and Labor Organizations relating to the execution of agree-
ments, the establishment of wage-rates, and the settlement of all questions
that may arise in connection therewith . . .
Article XV, Section 1, of said bylaws reads in part :
No contract shall be entered into by any member of this Association with
any labor organization or with men employed in any capacity that may be
at variance with of contrary to the agreements made by their Associa-
tion .. .
Murrell is a member of the Association.
At the. hearing General Counsel contended, and counsel for the Respondents
conceded, that the. Association and its members are engaged in commerce. In
consonance with Board decisions in Carpenter and Skaer, Inc., et al. (90 NLRB
417 and 93 NLRB 188) the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that (1) the
Association and its members, specifically Murrell, are engaged in commerce within
1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the meaning of the Act,3 and (2) that because these proceedings arise from a
contract between the Council and the Association the Board should exercise
jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 428 and the Council are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The kernel of this case is the problem as to whether or not the Council and
Local 428 violated the Act by involving an existing contract between the Council
and the Association, thereby causing Murrell, a member of the Association, to
cancel its subcontract with Palladino, thereby causing Palladino to discharge
employees for the reason that they were not members of Local 428.
B. The facts
In September 1949, Murrell was engaged in erecting, for Acme, a "Super
Market" in Pottstown. Early the same month Murrell awarded to subcontractor
Palladino the job of installing the plumbing and heating system. About Sep-
tember 19, Palladino began this work, employing for, the purpose six laborers
and two mechanics. On the same day Nicholas Palladino was approached on the
job site by Business Agent Banks of the Building and Common Laborers Union.
Banks asked if Palladino's laborers were "union." When Palladino said "No,"
Banks asked if he did not know it was a union job. Palladino again replied in
the negative and Banks left.
On September 22, Business Agent Dwyer of Local 428 approached Palladino
with similar questions. Later that day Dwyer sent the following letter to
Murrell :
I visited the new construction job of the American Stores in Pottstown,
Pennsylvania, today and talked with Nick Palladino of the same company.
I asked him about the job and he informed me he was told it was not neces-
sary for him to be union ; also said, he had both the plumbing and heating.
I, in turn, told him I thought he had been misinformed about the job -being
nonunion, and intended to investigate.
Upon returning to my office I looked over the list of contractors signed
with the Building Trades Council of Philadelphia and vicinity, and found
that your company is a member of the Associated (sic) General Contractors
of Philadelphia.
So this is to inform you that the Trades Council will have a meeting
tomorrow morning September 23, 1949, and I am citing your Company for
a violation of your agreement.
The said Nick Palladino Company are not signed with the United Associa-
tion or Local No. 428 which has jurisdiction over Pottstown.
$ Although contended, litigated, and argued, again apparently by oversight General
Counsel failed in the complaint to allege, as in the cases of Acme and Palladino, that
either the Association or Murrell were "engaged in, commerce within the meaning of the
Act." However, the Trial Examiner does not consider the defect sufficiently serious to
warrant dismissal or amendment of the complaint. In view of the nature of the con-
troversy, described fully hereinafter, the Trial Examiner considers it unnecessary to
resolve the -questions as to whether Murrell is "in commerce" because of its business
done with Acme, concededly in commerce, or as to whether. Palladino, a subcontractor
not an association member, is likewise "in commerce" within the meaning of the Act.
LOCAL 428, UNITED ASSOC. OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES 1485
Hoping we can straighten this job out 100% to -the satisfaction of all
concerned.
The Council, referred to in Dwyer's letter, is an organization - comprised, accord-
Ing to Its bylaws, of members which are "local unions in good standing with
International Unions affiliated with the Building and. Construction Trades De-
partment" of the American Federation of Labor. Its purpose, according to
Joseph F. Burke, its president, is to protect, advance, and represent the interests
of the local unions which are its members. Local 428 is a member of the Council.
At the time of this controversy in 1949, and at the time of the hearing, there
existed an agreement, executed in January 1943, between, the Association and
the Council which contains this significant provision :
1. It is agreed that the members of the Party of the First Part [Associa-
tion] will employ, either directly or indirectly, none but members affiliated
with the Party of Second Part [Council].
On September 26, Murray Eisman , president of Murrell, was visited by a com-
mittee of the Council, including Dwyer and Banks. Eisman was informed by
the committee, in effect, that if' Palladino were not removed the unions would.
call their men off the job.' Dwyer reminded him that as a member of the Associ-
ation he was required to live up to the association agreement. The same day
Eisman wrote, in part, to Palladino:
This is to advise that we are terminating your employment . . . as
of Wednesday, September 28, 1949 . . . As members of the General Builders
Contractors Association, we are bound by contract signed by the Associarion
with the various unions concerned and must live up to our contract nal
agreement.
On September 28 Palladino and his eight employees left the job. The following
month Palladino, in consideration of $2,000, released Murrell from any claim
arising out of the contract between them.
0. Conclusions
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Council and Local 428, by
involving the provision in the Association-Council agreement above quoted,
caused Murrell to cancel its contract with Palladino,,; and Palladino to terminate
the employment of the eight employees on the Acme job.
It is General Counsel's contention, opposed by Local 428 and the Council,
that by this act Local 428 and the Council "caused an employer to discriminate
against an employee in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, proscribed by
Section 8 (b) (2)." Without reviewing here the able and erudite arguments
advanced by opposing counsel in their briefs, the plain fact appears to be pre-
cisely as claimed by General Counsel. Section 8 (a) (3) makes illegal employ-
ment discrimination "to. encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization,"-unless there exists a legal "union shop" agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization. Here there is no claim that Palladino's
employees were removed from the job because of a legal "union shop." On the
contrary, the contract involved was a "closed shop" agreement, clearly not counte-
nanced by the Act. However devious its channels, as argued by counsel for Local
428 and the Council, a single transaction occurred. Murrell, an employer, bound
by his membership obligations in the Association to observe the closed-shop
agreement between the Association and the Council, was caused by action of
4 This finding rests upon Eisman's credible testimony.
1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 428 and the Council to effect discrimination against eight employees for
the sole reason, so far as the record shows, that at least two of them were not
members of Local 428. That these employees were not on Murrell's payroll, but
Palladino's, is no valid defense.. Neither Section 8 (a) (3) nor Section 8 (b) (2)
confines application of the Act to discrimination by an employer against em-
ployees on his own payroll. Eight employees were working on the Acme job
on September 28, 1949, presumably with reasonable expectation of continuing
this employment until the job was finished. That'day they were dismissed from
this employment for the reason that two of them were not members of Local 428.
Causation of their dismissal originated.in action by Local 428 and the Council,.
invoking an illegal closed-shop provision.'
In summary, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that on September'28,.
1949, Local 42 and the Council, both being labor organizations, by invoking said
contract "caused an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation
of subsection (a) .(3),"` thereby violating Section 8. (b) (2) of the Act.
The same facts support the conclusion, and the Trial Examiner further finds,
that by invoking; the, above-described closed-shop contract, and causing their
discharge, Local 428 and the Council restrained and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights, guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,' thereby, violating Section
8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act'
IT. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Association and Murrell described in Sec-
tion I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the conti=act;of January 1943 between the Association- and
the Council contains illegal provisions, the Trial Examiner will recommend that
the Respondents cease and desist from giving effect to the entire contract,' and
from entering into, renewing, or enforcing any agreement which requires mem-
bership in Local 428 or other members of the Council as a condition of employ-
ment, unless such agreement is authorized as provided by the Act. -
Having found that the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices the Trial
Examiner will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to-effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondents engaged. in unfair labor practices by
causing Murrell to discriminate against eight employees of Palladino, encourag-
ing membership in Local 428, and thereby restraining and coercing employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. Since the job has been com
pleted, reinstatement will not be recommended. No recommendation that any
employee be made whole will be included for the following reasons: (1) None
8 Quotation is from Section 8 (.b) (2) of the Act. _
G Relevant excerpts from Section 7 read : "Employees shall have the right to self:--
organization, to form, join, or assist labor -organizations . . . and shall also have the
right to refrain from any or all of such activities. . . .
' Carpenter t Skaer, Inc., et at., 93 NLRB 188.
8 Nothing in these recommendations shall be deemed to require parties to said contract
to vary or abandon any substantive provisions of such agreement, not herein found illegal,
or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they may have acquired -
thereunder.
LOCAL 428, UNITED ASSOC. OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES 1487
of the employees involved was identified by name or offered as a witness at
the hearing, nor were any employees' names listed either in the charge or the
complaint; (2) the only evidence bearing upon the point shows that Palladino's
contract price for the job was $2,000, and that he received this amount from
Murrell upon releasing his claim ; in the absence of contrary evidence it must be
presumed that he, in turn, made his employees whole for the amount presumably
included in his original bid; and (3) because of the foregoing facts it does not
appear that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to recommend back pay
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 428, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, A. F. L., and
Building and Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By enforcing the contract-of January 1943, and` by causing' an employer to
discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act,
the above-named labor organizations have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the above-named labor organizations have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1)
(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF LOCAL 428,
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND
PIPEFITTING -INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, A. F. L., AND BUILD-
ING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY
Pursuant to the 'recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board,' and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL CEASE performing or giving effect to our contract of January
1943, with GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED.
WE WILL NOT enter into, renew, or enforce any agreement with GENERAL
BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, which requires em-
ployees to be members of, to join, or to maintain membership in our organi-
zations, or any of them, unless or until such agreement has been authorized
as provided in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause any employer to discharge or
otherwise discriminate against employees in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce employees of any employer
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to
Section 10 (c) states, "back pay may be required," language which is not mandatory.
1488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem=
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
LOCAL 428, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE
PLUMBING AND "PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA,
A. F. L.
By ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA AND
VICINITY.
By ---------------------------------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 66 days. from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
WEBS-LINN PRINTING COMPANY and CHICAGO `PRINTING PRESSMEN'S
UNION No. 3 AND FRANKLIN UNION No. 4, SUBORDINATE TO THE IN-
TERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONERS.' Cage No. 13-RC-1994. August 30,
1951 .
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) 'of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Irving M. Friedman, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioners seek a unit of all pressmen, apprentice pressmen,2
press assistants, and apprentice press assistants at the Employer's
printing plant in Chicago, Illinois, excluding office, professional, and
all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The
Employer takes the position that the pressmen and press feeders or
press assistants comprise two separate units. However, in the event
I The names of the Petitioners appear as amended at the hearing.
2 The record reveals that there are no apprentice pressmen as such and that the
pressmen are recruited from press feeders, assistant press feeders , and press assistants.
95 NLRB No. 205.