Edward E. Cox, Printer, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 22, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 594 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of EDWARD E. Cox, PRINTER, INC. and INTERNATIONAL
PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION, LOCAL No. 376
Case No. C-37.-Decided April 2'2, 1936
Newspaper Publishing Industry-Printing Industry-Unit Appropriate for
Collective Bargaining : craft; occupational differences-Representatives: proof
of choice : membership in union ; proxies designating-Collective Bargaining: re-
fusal to recognize representatives as bargaining agency representing employees ;
refusal to negotiate with representatives-negotiation in good faith : meeting
with representatives but with no intention of bargaining in good faith ; counter-
proposals ; reasonable effort , in general-Interference , Restraint or Coercion:
persuasion of employees to resign from union-ConditiQn of Employment: non-
membership in union.
Mr. David I. Persinger for the Board.
Mr. James R. Emshwiller, of Hartford City, Ind., for respondent.
Mr. Samuel G. Zack, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On October 18, 1935, International Printing Pressmen and Assist-
ants' Union, Local No. 376, hereinafter referred to as the Union, filed
with the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region a charge that
the Edward E. Cox, Printer, Inc., of Hartford City, Indiana, had
engaged in unfair labor practices, forbidden by the National Labor
Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935, hereinafter referred to as the
Act. On January 9, 1936, the Board issued a complaint against the
Edward E. Cox, Printer, Inc., hereinafter referred to as respondent,
the complaint being signed by the Regional Director for the Eleventh
Region and alleging that respondent had committed unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions
(1) and (5) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act. In
respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in sub-
stance :
1. That the pressroom at the Hartford City plant of the respondent
constitutes a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of the Act;
2. That on or about August 21, 1935, the Union, representing a
majority of the employees in said unit, requested the respondent to
594
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 595
bargain collectively with it, and on said date and on September 28,
1935, October 3, 1935, October 14, 1935 and on October 23, 1935,
and at divers other times thereafter, the respondent did refuse and
has refused to bargain collectively with the Union and did refuse
to recognize the Union as the bargaining agent of said unit, and is
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (5) of the Act.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were served on
the respondent in accordance with Article V of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1. The respondent filed
no answer within the time prescribed in Article II, Section 9 of said
Rules and Regulations-Series 1, but at the time of the hearing filed
a "Special Appearance and Special Answer," wherein the respondent
stated it appeared specially for the purposes only of pleading the
question of the Board's jurisdiction over the respondent and over
the matters alleged in the complaint; denied that it is engaged in
interstate commerce; alleged that the Act violates the First and
Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and is
accordingly unconstitutional; and moved that the cause be dismissed
or abated. The Trial Examiner allowed the filing of the "Special
Answer" without ruling on the motion to dismiss or the plea in
abatement.
The hearing was originally set for January 24, 1936 at 10 o'clock
a. m., at Muncie, Indiana. It was later postponed to January 30,
1936, at the same place, and the respondent was notified of said ad-
journment. Pursuant to the notice, the hearing was held before
Robert Al. Gates, Trial Examiner duly. designated by the Board.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded
to all parties. Stipulations with regard to the respondent's business
were agreed upon by all parties, and were offered in evidence and
made a part of the record without objections.
At the conclusion of the Board's testimony dealing with the re-
spondent's business, counsel for the respondent renewed the motion
to dismiss the proceeding and for its abatement. The Trial Examiner
reserved decision. The motion to dismiss and the plea in abatement
are now denied.
On January 17, 1936, the Board directed that the proceeding be
transferred to and continued before it, thereupon assuming juris-
diction of the proceeding pursuant to Section 35, Article II of said
Rules and Regulations-Series 1.
Upon the record in the case, the stenographic report of the hearing
and all the evidence, including oral testimony, documentary and
other evidence offered and received at the hearing, the Board makes
the following :
596 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
The respondent is and has been since February 1, 1928, a corpo-
ration organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the
State of Indiana, having its principal office and place of business
in the City of Hartford City, Blackford County, State of Indiana.
The respondent is engaged in the business of, (1) printing and
publishing a daily newspaper known as the "Hartford City News",
(2) operating a printing shop for commercial job printing, and
(3) printing and selling what is known as "glassine and grease
proof paper" to be used for wrapping candy, meat and other com-
modities. All of the operations necessary in the production of the
finished products are carried on in one building. The respondent
employs about 55 people.
The respondent purchases various raw materials and supplies both
within and without the State of Indiana. The principal raw ma-
terials and supplies purchased by the respondent are paper, ink,
electrotype and nickletype plates, lumber and nails. The glassine
and grease proof paper is purchased from a paper mill in Hartford
City, Indiana. In 1935 the respondent purchased over one million
pounds of such paper. The orders for purchasing of the newsprint
paper used in printing and publishing of the respondent's news-
paper are placed with a concern in New York City but the ship-
ments of paper are made from Canada to the respondent's plant.
During the year 1935, the respondent purchased approximately sev-
enty-five thousand pounds of ink, most of which came from the
States of Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New York, Wis-
consin and other points in the United States. A small amount was
purchased in Indiana. The electrotype and nickeltype plates came
mostly from the State of Kentucky. The nails and lumber used in
the making of shipping cases were purchased in Indiana. A small
amount of cellophane is purchased without the State of Indiana.
All of the glassine and grease proof wrappers are printed to order.
No stock of such wrappers is carried on hand. During the year 1935
the respondent printed approximately five hundred million such
wrappers of various sizes and shapes and for many different types
of products. About one million two hundred fifty thousand pounds
of such wrappers were printed during the year, 90% of which was
shipped out of the State of Indiana. Of the 90% shipped out of
Indiana, 50% was sent to the State of Illinois, and 40^/o to points
in other States of the United States.
The newspaper which the respondent prints and publishes has a
daily circulation of 2200 of which number 150 are daily sent to sub-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 597
scribers outside of Indiana. The newspaper is a subscriber to a
"pony call" service of the United Press and receives "news letters"
from the same service. The newspaper carries advertisements of
products that are manufactured outside of the State of Indiana.
In 1935, the income from the respondent's business was approxi-
mately $200,000. About 80% of this income cane from the printing
and sale of glassine and grease proof commodity wrappers; 17%
came from its newspaper business; and the remaining 3% came from
the commercial job printing work. About 70% of the respondent's
total income was derived from the shipment of the wrappers in inter-
state commerce.
The products produced by the respondent are shipped by express,
mail, truck, railroad, and traction lines.
The operations of the respondent constitute a continuous flow of
trade, traffic and commerce among the several states.
II. THE RESPONDENT AND THE UNION
A. International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local
No. 376
The Union is a labor organization which was formed by the
respondent 's pressmen and assistants on June 25 , 1935 for the pur-
pose of creating an agency for collective bargaining between the
respondent and its printing pressmen and assistants . The Union is
a local of International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of
North America, which is affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor.
B. The appropriate unit
In connection with all of its business, the respondent employed
during the year 1935, on a daily average, 55 persons, 9 of whom were
engaged in a supervisory or clerical capacity ; 4 were engaged on the
editorial staff of the newspaper; 17 as either compositors, linotype
operators, paper cutters, inspectors, stereotypers, printer's devils,
janitors or shippers; and 25 as pressmen or assistants.
The work and skill required of printing pressmen and assistants,
and the hours and conditions of their employment, differ greatly
from that of the other of the respondent's employees and it therefore
follows that any collective bargaining as to wages, hours and condi-
tions of employment would have to be carried on by them as a group
separate and apart from the other employees of the respondent. In
its dealings with the Union, the respondent never raised any *question
with respect to the appropriate unit; and the allegation in the com-
plaint that the pressroom of the respondent constitutes a unit appro-
598 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
priate for the purpose of collective bargaining was not denied by the
respondent either in its answer or at the hearing.
We find that the printing pressmen and assistants employed by the
*respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
L
C. Designation of union as representative of the employees
At a meeting of the Union on July 26, 1935, a scale committee was
appointed to negotiate a working agreement with the respondent.
At or about this time, each of the 18 Union members employed by the
respondent authorized International Printing Pressmen and Assist-
ants' Union of North America to "represent my interests in all labor
disputes that might occur in this plant." These authorizations were
called "proxies" and were to run for a period of one year. Each
member signed an individual "proxy." They were offered in evidence
and made part of the record.
The allegation in the complaint that on or before August 21, 1935,
a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit had designated
the Union as their representative for purposes of collective bargain-
ing with the respondent was not denied by the respondent in either
its answer or at the hearing. During its dealings with the Union,
the respondent never raised the question.
On August 21, 1935, the day on which the scale committee met with
officers of the respondent for the first time in an endeavor to negotiate
a collective agreement, and at all times thereafter, the Union repre-
sented 18 of the 25 pressmen and assistants employed by the re-
spondent. Thus, the Union was designated as the representative for
purposes of collective bargaining by a majority of the 25 employees
in the unit which we have found to be appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On August 3, 1935, Joe A. Wilson, international representative of
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America, sent the following letter, by registered mail, to the
respondent:
"Will you please advise the writer as to the most convenient
time a conference can be held with you to negotiate the attached
contract, which covers hours, wages, and working conditions.
"For your information, your employees have chosen the Inter-
national Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America as their collective bargaining agency. Your plant as
represented covers the Pressroom and those connected with the
final production of the product.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 599
"It is the desire of the writer at this conference to arrive at
some amicable understanding, and assuring you of our desire for
a pleasant relationship in the negotiations of the attached agree-
ment, we are
"Very truly yours,"
Attached to this letter was a proposed agreement pertaining to hours,
wages and working conditions. The respondent did not reply to the
letter.
On August 21, 1935, the scale committee, accompanied by Albert
Weber, president of International Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union, Local No. 171, as representative of the International, met with
Jack Dolan and Edward E. Cox, Jr., president and treasurer, re-
spectively, of the respondent. On September 28th, accompanied by
Mr. Wilson, the scale committee again met with the same officers
of the respondent. On each occasion, the efforts of the representa-
tives of the Union to bargain collectively were categorically repulsed.
Mr. Wilson testified that on the latter occasion, Mr. Dolan told him
"that he was not interested in recognizing the union, nor did he want
to deal with them, or even the committee representing the employees."
During the period between these meetings, a Commissioner of Con-
ciliation of the United States Department of Labor had attempted,
without success, to prevail upon the respondent to take a more
conciliatory position.
The scale committee again met with the officers of the respondent
on October 3rd and although the respondent would not enter into
collective' bargaining, it advised Wilson to call the respondent by
telephone. Accordingly, on October 11th, Wilson called Dolan and
was told that the matter was being submitted to the- respondent's
Board of Directors and that he would be advised the latter part of
October as to their decision. The scale committee again met with the
respondent's officers on October 14th and again the respondent re-
fused to enter into negotiations looking toward a collective agree-
ment. The respondent took the position that to recognize the Union
or to negotiate an agreement would mean the paying of higher wages
and that because the margin of profit on the work being performed
at the plant was so small, it could not afford to pay higher wages.
Not satisfied with the position taken by the respondent and the
reason advanced for its refusal to enter into collective bargaining,
the committee informed Dolan that it would file charges with the
Nationa)l Labor Relations Board. Dolan thereupon requested the
committee to withhold such action until he could place the matter
before the Board of Directors. This the committee agreed to do.
On October 23rd Dolan called in the committee and informed them
that the Board of Directors had turned down all proposals; would
97571-36-vol r- 39
600 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
refuse to recognize the Union as the representative of its pressroom
employees; and would not bargain collectively with them. There-
after on October 26th, the Union filed charges of unfair labor prac-
tices against the respondent.
As a result of the intercession of Robert Cowdrill, Regional Direc-
tor of the Eleventh Region, National Labor Relations Board, the
committee, together with Joe A. Wilson, met with Dolan and Cox on
November 11th. Wilson read to the group the proposed working
agreement which had been submitted to the respondent on August
3rd. After the proposed contract was read, Wilson then asked Dolan
whether or not there were any objectionable paragraphs, to which
Dolan replied,-"It is all objectionable, we have bargained and that
is all we have got to do." Dolan thereafter stated that if the workers
were not satisfied, they could get out, and that the respondent would
not recognize the Union or the committee. When asked by Wilson
if it would submit to the committee, "counter-proposals or something
tangible, that we could work from", Dolan stated that it was unnec-
essary, "that they were not interested in collective bargaining, nor
were they interested in recognizing anybody".
By letter dated November 13th, Wilson submitted a revised draft
agreement to the respondent. This draft eliminated the closed shop
and Union scale provisions of the original draft, and substituted for
the latter a provision for a 10% increase in all wages. However,
according to Wilson, Mr. Dolan "absolutely turned it down".
Although the respondent met with the committee on several occa-
sions, it did not at any time attempt to bargain collectively or make
an effort to come to an agreement. It was only after the interven-
tion of Mr. Cowdrill and after the charges against it were filed with
the Board that the respondent even pretended to negotiate an agree-
ment. By listening to a committee member read the proposed agree-
ment and then turning the proposals down in their entirety without
submitting counter-proposals or entering into an honest and sincere
discussion of the proposals, the respondent did not fulfill its-obli-
gations. As was said in-In the Matter of Atlantic Refining Com-
pany, decided on March 19, 1936, "Collective Bargaining .... means
that the employer is obligated to negotiate in good faith with his
employees as a group, through their representatives, on matters of
wages, hours and basic working conditions and to endeavor to reach
an agreement for a fixed period of time." We find that the respond-
ent did not negotiate in good faith and did not endeavor to reach an
agreement.
It is therefore clear that the respondent refused to bargain collec-
tively-with the Union as the representative of its employees in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 601
employment. By such refusal, the respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Not only did the respondent refuse to recognize the Union as the
representative of the employees in the pressroom and to enter into
collective bargaining with the Union; it also entered upon a cam-
paign of smashing the Union. Some time during the week of Jan-
uary 20, 1936, Dolan called Elwood W. Farr, secretary-treasurer of
the Union and a member of the scale committee, into his office. Dur-
ing the discussion, Dolan suggested that Farr talk to the members of
the Union individually and ask them to resign from the Union. Farr
did not talk to the men individually but called a meeting on Saturday
afternoon, January 25, 1936, and asked the Union employees whether
or not they desired to continue their Union activities. The men voted
to continue their Union affiliations. This action of the Union work=
ers was reported to Dolan to which he replied that it would be "a
case of dog eat dog" from then on.
The case of Claude Beeson is a further indication of the respond-
ent's interference with the rights of its employees as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. Beeson had been an employee of the respondent
for 12 years and was a charter member of the Union. Shortly after
the Thanksgiving holiday in 1935, Beeson was discharged for having
left his work to go home for one hour for a Thanksgiving dinner with
his family, without having obtained the permission of the foreman.
Three times in December, 1935, he tried to get back his job. On
December 28th and 31st, Dolan and Cox told him that they were
not hiring Union men. On January 18th, Beeson asked Dolan
whether he could go back to work if he resigned from the Union.
Dolan thereupon told Beeson to come back later. Beeson did resign,
from the Union on January 19th, and applied for work on January
20th, informing Dolan and Cox of his action in resigning from the-
Union. Beeson was then told to report to work the following
Monday.
IV. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Interference with the activities of employees in forming or join-
ing labor organizations result in strikes and other forms of indus-
trial unrest. In 1934, and in January to July, inclusive, 1935, such
interference by employers in the book and job printing industry
resulted in strikes and lockouts involving 1,613 workers and 34,150
man-days of idleness.
The aforesaid acts of the respondent tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
602 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing, the Board finds and concludes
as a matter of law :
1. International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local
No. 376 , is a labor organization , within the meaning of Section 2,
subdivision (5) of the Act.
2. The printing pressmen and their assistants employed by the
respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
baargain-ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.'
3. By virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local No. 376, having been duly
designated on or about July 26, 1935 by a majority of the employees
in an appropriate unit as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining, has at all times thereafter been the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit.
4. By its refusal to bargain collectively with the Union as the
representative of its employees in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment and other conditions of employment, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of said Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of said Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
respondent, Edward E. Cox, Printer, Inc., and its officers and agents,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively -;+h
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local No.
376, as the exclusive representative of the printing pressmen and
their assistants employed by the respondent, in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment.
2. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right of self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid and protection.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 603
3. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act : Upon request , bargain collectively
with International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local
No. 376, as the exclusive representative of the printing pressmen and
their assistants employed by the respondent , in respect to rates of
pay, wages , hours of employment , and other conditions of employ-
ment.
[SAME TITLE ]
AMENDMENT OF DECISION
April 29, 1946
The National Labor Relations Board, having duly issued its de-
cision in this matter on April 22, 1936, and being fully advised in the
premises, hereby issues its Amendment of Decision , by adding to the
Conclusions of Law in the decision the following paragraph :
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2, sub-
divisions ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
- MR. CARMODY took no part in the consideration of the above
Amendment of Decision.