The Cuneo Press, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 25, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 1407 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

NEO GRAVURE PRINTING COMPANY, ETC. 1407
employers the benefits of a determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act. This, in my opinion , is not what Congress and the Supreme
Court intended.
MEMBERS RODGERS and BROWN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing.
Neo Gravure Printing Company, a Subsidiary of The Cuneu
Press, Inc . and New York Mailers' Union No. 6, International
Typographical Union , AFL-CIO and New York Paper Han-
dlers and Straighteners Union No. 1, of the International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America,
Party to the Contract
Neo Gravure Printing Company, a Subsidiary of The Cuneo
Press, Inc. and New York Mailers ' Union No. 6, International
Typographical Union , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 22-CA-849 and
22-CA-1013. April 25, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 29, 1961, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
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 [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein 2
We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that Respondent
violated Section 8(a) (1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act. In so holding,
we reject Respondent's contention that a duty of neutrality under the
1 As the record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the issues and the positions of
the parties, the Respondent's request for oral argument is denied.
2 Member Leedom votes to affirm the Trial Examiner in all respects for the reasons
indicated in the Intermediate Report.
136 NLRB No. 127.
1408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Midwest Piping 3 doctrine required that it not recognize the Mailers.
"It is the underlying factual situation which controls the question of
whether recognition of a union by an employer in the circumstances
of any given case violates the duty of neutrality," 4 and the Board
has made it manifestly clear that "the Midwest Piping doctrine does
not apply in situations where ... the rival claim ... does not
raise a real representation question." s The situation with which Re-
spondent was confronted here was clearly not one in which conflicting
claims to representation of the employees in the unit existed. Rather,
Respondent was presented with an unchallenged claim as representa-
tive and a demand for recognition and bargaining for a specific unit
of employees by the majority representative of those employees at a
time when they were unrepresented. Respondent did not question
the identity or appropriateness of the unit or the Mailer's majority
status therein 6 Indeed, it admittedly met repeatedly with the Mailers
and held itself out as ready to recognize and bargain at such time as
the Mailers could present it with written assurance that recognition
would not present Respondent with a jurisdictional dispute-such
assurance to be in the form of a signed renunciation of any jurisdic-
tional claim by the Paper Handlers who represented a separate unit
of Respondent's employees. Thus, the most even Respondent con-
sidered itself faced with was a claim of jurisdiction based upon con-
tract coverage rather than a claim to represent the specific employees
involved.' A question of union jurisdiction over the type of work
8 63 NLRB 1060.
4 Burke Oldsmobile, Inc, 128 NLRB 79, 86
e Shea Chemical Corporation , 121 NLRB 1027, 1029
"In its exceptions and brief , Respondent contested the value of the history of bargain-
ing as a factor in determining the appropriateness of the unit , alleging that such history
was tainted by contracts for members only. On the basis of the contracts on exhibit and
the record as a whole , we find no merit in this contention . for the unit covered by such
contracts encompassed a functionally distinct department and contract coverage was not
limited to members only In accepting the unit found appropriate by the Trial Examiner,
we rely upon the record evidence of a separate department of shipping and receiving em-
ployees with separate supervision and a separate community of interest, as well as a
history of bargaining as a separate unit, but without regard to the prior unit determina-
tion in the decertification proceeding with which this unit finding is consistent.
7Indeed, the Paper Handlers did not claim to represent a single employee in the unit,
but rather claimed jurisdiction over the work by virtue of the wording of its contract
which covered a separate unit. That the contract did not in fact cover the employees in
the unit involved herein, and that the parties did not regard it as doing so, is clearly evi-
denced by the coexistence of the two units in separate contracts with separate representa-
tives for years, and the fact that the Respondent and the Paper Handlers found it neces-
sary to amend the unit description of their new contract in substantial respects in order
to cover these employees
Thus, the unit herein involved covered the bindery operation and shipping and receiving,
whereas the Paper Handlers' unit covered the handling of unused paper for use on the
presses by receiving it in carload lots at a special railroad siding, storing it, preparing it
for and bringing it to the presses . The unit description in the Paper Handlers' 1959
contract accordingly limited the receiving function and covered no shipping functions
whatsoever In these and other respects the unit description in their 1961 contract was
amended so as to cover the unit represented by the Mailers. That this was done with
all due deliberation and intent of changing the scope of the contract unit is demonstrated
by the parties' specific exemption from change of the Alco-Gravure shop where the
Mailers were the contract representative of their unit This conduct we, like the Trial
Examiner , find violative of Section 8(a) (2).
NEO GRAVURE PRINTING COMPANY, ETC. 1409
performed is not a question concerning representations of employees
engaged in such work . That the Respondent was motivated by a
desire to avoid a jurisdictional dispute in its plant does not justify or
excuse its conduct which had the necessary effect of interfering with
the employees' statutory rights .9
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Ex-
aminer with the modifications of provisions 2(e) and ( f) in accord
with footnotes 26 and 27 of said Recommended Order.'o
8 See Webb Fuel Company, 135 NLRB 309.
6 See G. & S . Flectrso Company, 130 NLRB 961, 966-967 , where recognition was un-
lawfully conditioned upon a written guarantee to the effect that Respondent would not have
any interference from any other union so far as new construction work was concerned.
10 The following is to be inserted in the notice . Employees may communicate directly
with the Board ' s Regional Office, 614 National Newark Building , 744 Broad Street,
Newark 2, New Jersey, Telephone Number Market 4-6151, if they have any questions con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented , was heard before me at Newark,
New Jersey, on September 13, 14, and 15, and October 17, 19, and 20, 1961, upon
the consolidated complaint and amended complaint of the General Counsel, the
answer and amended answer of Neo Gravure Printing Company, herein called Neo
or the Respondent, and a stipulation of the parties attached hereto marked
"Appendix A."
The complaint as amended alleged the Respondent refused to bargain in good
faith with New York Mailers' Union No. 6, International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO,' herein called Mailers, in violation of Section 8(a)(5); refused rein-
statement to 27 strikers named in paragraph 16(b) of the complaint in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3); executed and maintained in effect a collective-bargaining contract
with New York Paper Handlers and Straighteners Union No. 1, herein called Paper
Handlers, covering a bargaining unit in which the Paper Handlers did not represent
a majority of the employees and which required membership in the Paper Handlers
as a condition of employment in violation of Section 8(a) (2).
During the hearing the General Counsel moved to strike so much of Respondent's
answer as denied the appropriateness of the unit and Respondent moved to dismiss
the complaint . Decision on these motions was reserved and they are now disposed
of in accordance with the recommended order herein.
At the close of the hearing the General Counsel and the Charging Party engaged
in brief oral argument and a brief was received from the Respondent on No-
vember 24.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my observations of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Neo Gravure Printing Company is a New Jersey corporation and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of The Cuneo Press, Inc., whose principal office is located at 2242
South Grove Street, Chicago 16, Illinois . Neo's only plant is located at 300 Boulevard
East , Weehawken, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the rotogravure printing of
newspaper supplements , magazines , catalogs, and in other miscellaneous commercial
printing . During the past year Neo, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, performed services valued in excess of $1,000 , 000 at its said Weehawken
plant of which services , valued in excess of $1,000,000 were performed in connection
with the printing of newspaper supplements and other printing materials shipped
I The title appears as amended at the hearing.
1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from said plant in interstate commerce directly to States of the United States other
than the State of New Jersey wherein Neo is located. During the past year Neo,
in the course and conduct of its business operations, performed services valued in
excess of $1,000,000 of which services valued in excess of $1,000,000 were per-
formed for The New York Herald Tribune, Inc., The New York Mirror, Division
of Hearst Corporation, and The New York Journal American, Division of Hearst
Consolidated Publications, Inc., each of which enterprises is a newspaper publishing
company located in the State of New York and holding membership in or subscribing
to interstate news services or publishing syndicated features and advertisements of
nationally sold products and having gross revenues in excess of $200,000 per annum.
Neo is, and has been at all times material to the instant case, engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
New York Mailers' Union No. 6, located at One Beekman Street, New York 38,
New York, and New York Paper Handlers and Straighteners Union No. 1, located
at 150 Nassau Street, New York, New York, each is and has been at all times
material herein a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Violations of Section 8(a) (5)
From 1946 until December of 1959 Respondent recognized Platform and Office
Workers Union, Local No. 21510, ILA, herein called ILA, as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of a unit of press service employees and executed and main-
tained in effect collective-bargaining agreements with the ILA during those years.
The bargaining unit covered by the contracts included:
. . . checking, banding loads, loading and unloading of freight and/or printed
material to and off trucks (whether or not the trucks are manned or have been
manned by local truck drivers), the loading or unloading of cores and mis-
cellaneous supplies, and all other shipping and receiving work incidental thereto.
On July 22, 1959, a decertification petition was filed with the Board in the unit
represented by the ILA and on November 4, 1959, the Board issued its Decision and
Direction of Election in Case No. 24-RD-54. (General Counsel's-Respondent's
Exhibit No. 3.) The unit, which was stipulated as appropriate by all parties to the
proceeding, including the Respondent herein,2 was described in the Decision and
Direction as:
All shipping department employees, including platform men, pullers, strappers
and receiving clerks, and all motorcycle delivery and pickup men at the Em-
ployer's plant in Weehawken, New Jersey, but excluding all other employees,
office clerical and professional employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties (Appendix A) I find that the
above unit was intended to cover and did cover all of the classifications set forth
in the contract between ILA and Respondent.
In view of the Board's finding ,that the above unit was appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, I deem myself bound and I accordingly find the above unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining in this proceeding.3 I would,
however, in any event find the unit appropriate in view of the long prior history of
collective bargaining (see Appendix A) and the testimony received herein estab-
lishing that the employees in the unit were a separate departmental unit of shipping
and receiving employees, referred to by the Employer as the bindery, enjoying a
community of interest and separate supervision.4 Nor do I find that Respondent, on
8 There was disagreement among the parties as to the supervisory status of three em-
ployees, found 'by the Board to be nonsupervisory.
3 Trancoa Chemical Corporation, 133 NLRB 791, where the Board reversed the Trial
Examiner and refused to accept evidence on issues which had been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding. Cf. Royal McBee Corporation, 133 NLRB 1450, in which the
Board held that it was not erroneous to exclude matters litigated in the representation
case but in which the Board reviewed the offer of proof on the merits. I find serious con-
flict in rationale between the two decisions.
* The unloading of freight cars at the railroad siding, as distinguished from the un-
loading and loading of trucks at the delivery platform, was performed by the Paper
Handlers and the department performing this work was known as the paper handlers'
department.
NEO GRAVURE PRINTING COMPANY, ETC. 1411
the testimony of its own witnesses, advanced until October 1960 inappropriateness
as a reason for rejecting the Mailers' demand for recognition as representative of
the unit, although I do not find such failure absolves the General Counsel from
the necessity of proving his prima facie case. I would make the further finding
of fact that no substantial change in either the work to be performed nor in the
manner of performing it was made between December 3, 1959, and February 20,
1961.5
On December 3, 1959, the ILA was decertified as the bargaining representative of
the shipping and receiving department in the Board election and on that same day 38
employees in the department went to the Mailers' office in New York where 33 of
them signed authorization cards designating the Mailers as their bargaining agent.
Since 5 of these employees had already designated the Mailers and since the parties
stipulated that 39 employees were employed in the shipping department on Decem-
ber 3 (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 3), I find that the Mailers represented 38 of 39
employees in the shipping department unit.6
George McDonald, business representative of the Mailers, received the authori-
zation cards which were signed on December 3 and on that day he wrote Neo assert-
ing the Mailers' representative status and demanding recognition. (General
Counsel's-Respondent's Exhibit No. 6.) The Respondent replied on December 18
(after a prompting telephone call from McDonald) stating that it was "unwilling
to deal with any union that has not been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as a result of an official Board election." (General Counsel's-Respondent's
Exhibit No. 7.) 'r McDonald replied on December 22, contesting Respondent's posi-
tion and offering to establish the Mailers' overwhelming majority status by a consent
election conducted by the Board or by any other means of conducting a secret elec-
tion. (General Counsel's-Respondent's Exhibit No. 8.) Neo replied on January 14
(General Counsel's-Respondent's Exhibit No. 9) offering to discuss the situation with
the Mailers and, as a result, McDonald met with Charles McEvoy, vice president
of Neo, on February 11 at a restaurant in New York. Subsequent meetings were
held, with McEvoy and Frank Ingram, labor consultant, representing Neo and
McDonald and Thomas Laura, president of the Mailers, representing the Union.
These meetings took place on May 3, May 20, August 12, and November 4, 1960,6
and on February 17, 1961.9 On September 3, 1960, President Laura sent a telegram
to Neo requesting a firm date for negotiations. The telegram read:
6 This finding is based in part on the testimony of Charles Cullinane, who succeeded
Gervase as assistant general manager at Weehawken on November 9, 1960, and who testi-
fied that the shipping department and the paper handling department were separate de-
partments until February 20, 1961, the date of the strike, when they were integrated.
About the same time they were placed under single supervision.
O At the hearing Respondent offered to prove that the employees were coerced into desig-
nating the Mailers by offering evidence that, after obtaining membership in the Mailers,
the employees were able to obtain part-time and temporary work with newspapers in
New York City, employment which they had not been able to secure prior to membership.
The offer of proof was rejected by the Trial Examiner on the ground that even should
such additional employment be established as a result of admission to membership it
would not constitute coercion within the meaning of the Act. On special appeal to the
Board the Trial Examiner's ruling was affirmed. In its brief Respondent has again urged
this point and it is again rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Chief among the reasons
employees join labor organizations are increased benefits, better working conditions, and
greater employment opportunities To hold that such inducements have coercive effect
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) or taint the majority status is to misread the
Act. Nor would the fact, if established, that the Mailers had engaged in unlawful hiring
arrangements or practices with other employers in the metropolitan area have relevancy
in this proceeding.
'Neither the Paper Handlers nor the ILA had been certified for the units for which
they had acted as contractual bargaining representative. Respondent's letter to the
Mailers also suggested that since it was against the policy of the Board to hold more than
one election in a bargaining unit in any one year the Union should take it up with the
Board at a later date.
8This was the first meeting within the 10(b) period of limitation.
e Gerard Collins, secretary-treasurer of the Mailers, attended the meetings of August 12
and November 4. The last meeting, February 17, was attended by Joseph Gervase,
assistant superintendent of Neo's Weehawken plant, and Robert Ameln, International
representative of the Mailers.
641795-63-vol. 136-90
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since having four meetings and still not having a contract we demand continu-
ous negotiations with you until we have a contract. Meetings should start early
in October with a view to completing negotiations by end Octor (sic). Please
set time and place in Metropolitan New York for these meetings.
Respondent replied on October 3 10 by a letter addressed to Laura and signed
by McEvoy, reading:
DEAR MR. LAURA: I am sorry not to have had an opportunity to answer your
telegram of Sept. 27 earlier. However, as you know, Weehawken is but one of
my responsibilities and the travel demands of my work are heavy.
Your wire disturbs me because it implies that we have recognized your union
and that there have been four bargaining sessions on the terms of a contract
between the Mailers Union and our company. This is not correct. We have
neither recognized nor bargained with your union.
We have met and discussed our different concepts of the bargaining unit,
which you claim to represent, four times with the understanding that if we
could solve this problem, we could then establish a process for recognizing and
bargaining with your union.
To this end, we have asked that you secure certain assurances for us from
the other unions in our plant that they will not claim jurisdiction in the unit you
claim to represent. This, you have been unable to do so far.
This matter is further complicated in that the unit you seek to bargain for
is contrary to the tradition of our industry and contrary to the jurisdictional
union pattern in any of our other plants. We have also been informed by the
other unions involved that they will challenge your representing any of our
employees who belong in their unions in accordance with the accepted juris-
dictional pattern of the printing industry.
While I had hoped and still hope we can through discussion arrive at a solu-
tion satisfactory to everyone concerned, I am not willing that the company
should precipitate itself into a jurisdictional dispute with our other unions
with whom we have had excellent relations for many years because your union
seeks to establish a new and unique jurisdictional pattern in our Weehawken
plant.
I am leaving for the West Coast this evening, but expect to be in New York
the week of Oct. 17 or the 24. As soon as I have been able to crystallize a
definite date, I will advise you and at that time, we can arrange for a meeting
at a mutually satisfactory time to continue our discussions.
No purpose would be served by reviewing the meetings between the parties in
detail. While there is substantial difference between the testimony of McDonald
and McEvoy as to the scope of their discussions, that issue is not material to the
decision herein. For that reason I shall accept McEvoy's version as supplemented
by Respondent's correspondence."
Respondent took the position upon the receipt of the Mailers' first demand for
recognition that it was against company policy to recognize a union without Board
certification. It had, however, at its Weehawken plant recognized both the Paper
Handlers and the ILA without certification. To what extent this statement of
policy so inconsistent with the facts was motivated by Respondent's knowledge that
the Board would not direct an election for 1 year is speculative but, from the begin-
ning, Respondent took no steps to resolve the question concerning representation
by any of the means available to it, including the filing of an employer's petition.
Respondent's reason for its failure to act was frankly stated by McEvoy-Respond-
ent did not want to offend the Paper Handlers who had made a conflicting claim
to representation for the unit.ia On the record herein, however, the Paper Handlers'
claim was no more than a naked claim and there is no evidence that Respondent ever
believed it to be more than such.13 Neo, according to McEvoy, took a position of
strict neutrality between the rival organizations. This position, however laudable
in ordinary circumstances, appears to have been dictated by the fact that the Paper
1o This letter is also within the 10(b) period
11 Despite the discrepancies in their testimony I see no reason to discredit either McEvoy
or McDonald. Both impressed me as truthful witnesses and the difference in emphasis
which each placed on the scope of their discussions was no more than may reasonably be
expected from witnesses with opposing views relying on their recollections
i3 This claim, according to Respondent. was likewise submitted on December 3, 1959.
13 The reason why any agreement to proceed to resolve the conflicting claims by election
among the employees would presumably provoke the Paper Handlers was its lack of any
representative status in the unit.
NEO GRAVURE PRINTING COMPANY, ETC. 1413
Handlers was not only the incumbent representative of another unit of employees
but was also affiliated with the Pressmen, which represented the employees who
operated the presses. Another affiliate of the Pressmen, New York Photo Industrial
Union No. 1A, represented the porters and balers, the office employees, the floorboys
and the photographers, etchers, retouchers layout, cylinder grinders, polishers, platers-
depositors, and engravers. In evaluating Respondent's defense that it was at all
times motivated by good faith, it must be noted that at no time did it question the
majority status of the Mailers or accept the Mailers' offer to prove its majority. Nor
did Respondent prior to its letter of October 3 raise the question of the appropriate-
ness of the unit, a question I find had been disposed of by the Board's decision in
Case No. 24-RD-54.
While one may be sympathetic with the dilemma in which Respondent was caught,
confronted by one demand from the majority representative and a conflicting demand
from an incumbent union strongly entrenched as the representative of another unit,
such dilemmas are among the hazards of industrial life. The Paper Handlers,
although without representative status in the bindery, undoubtedly possessed the
potent threat of coercive economic action,14 but the Mailers, on the other hand,
possessed the right to recognition and that right, regardless of certification, could
not be denied them.15
In conclusion I find that the Mailers represented an overwhelming majority
of Respondent's employees in the shipping and receiving department, a unit found
by the Board to be appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining,16 at all times
material herein since December 3, 1959. I find that Respondent neither had
nor asserted a good-faith doubt as to the Mailers' majority status in that unit nor do
I find, in view of the history of collective bargaining for such unit, that Respondent
had a good-faith doubt as to the appropriateness of such unit.17 I find that the
Mailers demanded recognition in writing on December 3, 1959, on December 22,
1960, and on September 27, 1960. These demands were rejected in writing by Re-
spondent in its letters of December 18, 1959, and October 3, 1960. I also find that
the testimony establishes that the Mailers demanded recognition and bargaining status
at each of the meetings between the parties. The written demand of September 27,
1960, and oral demands submitted at the meetings of November 4, 1960, and
February 17, 1961, were all within the 10(b) period. The written refusal of the
Respondent on October 3 and oral refusals on November 4, 1960, and February
17, 1961, were, therefore, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
B. Violations of Section 8(a) (2)
On January 1, 1961, Respondent signed a collective-bargaining contract with the
Paper Handlers which contained the following clauses:
Section 2. The Union shall do all work in connection with the handling
of paper for the Gravure plants at all terminals, warehouses, pressrooms, and
paper warerooms attached hereto; loading, unloading, receiving, weighing,
checking, stripping, handling and bundling and shipping of all printed and un-
printed waste, handling and stripping and shipping of cores, and operating
core winding machines and unwinding machines, and operating elevators,
automatic and manual hoists, trucks and all machines used in the handling of
paper and all other work within the jurisdiction of the Union; also the handling
of paper in sheet form printed or unprinted, and the winding, jogging, rolling,
counting, stacking or transposing of this paper when and if required. Shop
practices now prevailing in Alco-Gravure shall continue unchanged.
It shall be a condition of employment that all employees covered by this
Agreement who are members of the Union on the effective date of this Agree-
ment shall remain members. Those who are not members on the effective date
of this Agreement, shall, on or after the thirtieth day following the effective date
1. That this was the real reason for withholding recognition is established by the re-
peated requests made by McEvoy to the Mailers to have the Mailers induce the Paper
Handlers to give written assurance it would not claim jurisdiction of the work performed
by the Mailers' unit. This was clearly an unlawful condition to impose upon the desig-
nated bargaining representative.
is United Mine Workers of America v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co, 351 U S 62
16 As set forth, supra, I have found the unit appropriate on the grounds of historic
bargaining, homogeneity, and community of interest apart from the Board's finding in
Case No. 24-RD-54.
17 In view of the finding herein, such a doubt would, of course, be immaterial. Tom
Thumb Stores, Inc, 123 NLRB 833
1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of said Agreement, become and remain members of the Union. It shall also.
be a condition of employment that all employees covered by this Agreement
who are hired on or after its effective date shall, on or after the thirtieth day
following the beginning of such employment become and remain members of
the Union.
It is clear that the work to be performed under section 2 above includes the work
performed by the employees in the unit in which the Mailers had been designated
the bargaining agent. By signing and executing the contract with the Paper Handlers
the Respondent recognized the Paper Handlers as the representative of the employees
in said unit in derogation of the exclusive status of the Mailers. In so doing
Respondent violated Section 8(a) (2) of the Act 18 I also agree with the General
Counsel that the union security clause in said contract gave further unlawful as-
sistance to the Paper Handlers. This clause, on its face, applied to and covered
all employees covered by the agreement, including the employees in the unit rep-
resented by the Mailers. Whether or not the clause was enforced as to the shipping
and receiving unit it constituted an unlawful entrenchment upon the rights guaranteed
those employees by Section 7.19 With respect to the prior contract entered into on
January 1, 1959, and maintained in effect until January 1, 1961, there is no evidence
that either of the above clauses in that contract was ever enforced by Respondent.
I therefore find that I am precluded by the Bryan decision 20 from finding a violation
with respect to it.21
C. Violations of Section 8(a) (3)
The employees in the shipping and receiving department struck on February 20,
1961. The sole cause of the strike was Respondent's refusal to recognize and
bargain with the Mailers as the representative of the employees in that depart-
ment. Since I have found the unit appropriate, the Mailers the majority representa-
tives, and a proper demand and unlawful refusal, the strike was an unfair labor
practice strike. On or about August 22, 1961, the strikers named in paragraph 16(b)
of the complaint made an unconditional offer to return to work but were denied
reinstatement by Respondent. The Respondent, in its amended answer, admitted the
unconditional offer to return and the refusal of reinstatement. Reinstatement was
refused on the ground that the strikers had been permanently replaced. Permanent
replacement is, of course, no justification for the refusal to reinstate unfair labor
practice strikers.22 I shall therefore find Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act by its refusal to reinstate the employees named in paragraph 1,6(b) of the
complaint on August 22, 1961.
IV. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act,
it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent since August 20, 1960,23 has refused to bargain
collectively with the Mailers as the exclusive representative of Respondent's em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to
bargain collectively, upon request, with the Mailers as the exclusive representative
of such employees and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in
a signed contract. The appropriate unit is:
All shipping department employees, including platform men, pullers, strappers,
and receiving clerks, and all motorcycle delivery and pickup men at the Employer's
plant in Weehawken, New Jersey, but excluding all other employees, office clerical
and professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in this
Act.
15International Ladies' Garment Workers Union v. N.L R.B. (Bernhard-Altman Texas
Corporation ), 366 U S. 731, affg. 280 F. 2d 616.
29 N L R B. v. Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO,
et al ( Bryan Manufacturing Co.), 362 U.S. 411.
20 Id.
21 The complaint does not allege that by executing and maintaining said clause in effect
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
22 The Jackson Press, Inc, 96 NLRB 897, 903.
23 August 20, 1960 , is the commencement of the 6-month period prior to the filing of
the charge.
NEO GRAVURE PRINTING COMPANY, ETC. 1415
I have found that Respondent entered into an agreement with the Paper Handlers
on January 1, 1961, whereby Respondent recognized the Paper Handlers as the
,exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate
herein at a time when the Mailers was the designated representative of the majority
,of the employees in said unit and that said agreement further required membership
in the Paper Handlers as a condition of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(2)
of the Act. I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from maintaining
in effect, or giving effect to, either the recognition clause or the union security clause
of said contract insofar as said clauses apply to employees in the unit found ap-
propriate herein.
I have found that the strike of the shipping department employees which com-
menced on February 20, 1961, was an unfair labor practice strike and that Re-
spondent thereafter, on August 22, 1961, discriminatively refused to reinstate the
strikers when they unconditionally applied for reinstatement. I shall recommend that
Respondent offer those employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, dismissing, if necessary, any em-
ployees hired since February 20, 1961, to replace them, and transferring back to other
departments, if necessary, any employees, including supervisory employees, trans-
ferred from other departments since February 20, 1961, to replace them. The follow-
ing are the strikers entitled to reinstatement:
Jacob Weiss Samuel Gelber Isadore Levine
Manny Yaker Herman Reiber Jonas Podharzer
Renato Gaggero Nathan Schlesinger Jerome Camarda
William Zik William Reiber Steven Toma
Patrick Cullerton Sam David Sidney Cahn
H. Abramowitz Mac Nadler Henry Gross
Elias Kohn John Kulas Louis Radin
Adolph Friedman Leslie Larke Bernard Blanche
David Scwartz Mike Reiter Frank Baker 24
If, after such dismissal and transfer back of other employees, there are insufficient
positions remaining for all these employees , the available positions shall be dis-
tributed among them, without discrimination because of their union membership,
activity, or participation in the strike, in accordance with such system of seniority or
other nondiscriminatory practice as has heretofore been applied in the conduct of
Respondent's business . Those strikers for whom no employment is immediately
available after such distribution shall be placed upon a preferential hiring list with
priority among them determined by such system of seniority or other nondiscrimina-
tory practice as has heretofore been applied in the conduct of Respondent's business,
and thereafter, in accordance with such list, shall be offered reinstatement as posi-
tions become available, and before other persons are hired for work. Reinstatement,
as provided herein, shall be without prejudice to the employees' seniority or other
rights and privileges.
I shall also recommend that Respondent be required to make these employees
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's dis-
crimination against them. This shall be done by payment to each of them of a
sum of money he would normally have earned from August 22, 1961, to the date of
reinstatement or placement upon a preferential hiring list, less his net earnings in
accordance with the Woolworth formula.25
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the entire record in this case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. New York Mailers' Union No. 6 and New York Paper Handlers and Straight-
eners Union No. 1 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By refusing at all times since August 20, 1960, to bargain in good faith with
New York Mailers' Union No. 6 as the exclusive bargaining representative in the
unit found appropriate herein, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
u The names appear as amended at the hearing.
21F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By entering into and maintaining in effect the agreement with New York
Paper Handlers and Straighteners Union No. 1, dated January 1, 1961, whereby
Respondent recognized the Paper Handlers as the bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit represented by the Mailers, as above found, and required
membership in the Paper Handlers as a condition of employment in said unit,
Respondent rendered and is rendering unlawful assistance and support to the Paper
Handlers in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
5. By discriminating against the employees named in paragraph 16(b) of the
amended complaint in regard to hire and tenure of employment, thereby discourag-
ing membership in New York Mailers' Union No. 6, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the
entire record in this case, it is recommended that the Respondent, Neo Gravure
Punting Company, a subsidiary of The Cuneo Press, Inc., its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with New York Mailers' Union No. 6 as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all its employees in the previously described
appropriate unit.
(b) Recognizing New York Paper Handlers and Straighteners Union No. 1 as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit in which the
Mailers represent a majority of the employees, as found herein, and requiring
membership in the Paper Handlers as a condition of employment in said unit.
(c) Discouraging membership in New York Mailers' Union No. 6, or any other
labor organization of its employees by discriminating in regard to their hire or
tenure or any terms or condition of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Mailers as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the previously described appropriate unit and, if
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a written agreement.
(b) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Paper Handlers as the
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit in which the Mailers repre-
sents a majority of the employees, as found herein.
(c) Offer to the individuals named above in the section entitled "The Remedy"
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
each of the aforesaid employees whole for any loss he may have suffered by reason
of Respondent's discrimination against him, all in accord with and in the manner
above set forth in said section.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security
payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary for the determination of the amount of backpay due under these
recommendations.
(e) Post at its Weehawken, New Jersey, plant copies of the notice attached here-
to marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Twenty-fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respond-
ent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted, and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material 26
26 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order "
NEO GRAVURE PRINTING COMPANY, ETC. 1417
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty -fourth Region , in writing, with-
in 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report , what steps
Respondent has taken to comply therewith 27
27 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with New York Mailers' Union
No. 6 as the exclusive representative of our employees in a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment , or other terms or conditions of employment. The
appropriate unit is:
All shipping department employees , including platform men , pullers, strap-
pers and receiving clerks, and all motorcycle delivery and pickup men at
the Employer 's plant in Weehawken , New Jersey , excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical and professional employees , guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT recognize New York Paper Handlers and Straighteners Union
No. 1 as the bargaining representative of the employees in said unit.
WE WILL NOT require membership in New York Paper Handlers and Straight-
eners Union No. 1 as a condition of employment in said unit.
WE WILL NOT maintain in effect or give effect to any term or clause in our
contract with New York Paper Handlers and Straighteners Union No. 1, dated
January 1, 1961 , which requires us to recognize said union as the bargaining
representative of employees in said unit or which requires membership in said
union as a condition of employment in said unit.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in New York Mailers' Union No. 6,
or in any other labor organization of our employees , by refusing to reinstate
or in any other manner discriminating against our employees in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment , except
as permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer the following named employees immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges , dismissing, if necessary, any em-
ployees hired since February 20, 1961, to replace them, and transferring back
to other departments, if necessary, any employees, including supervisory em-
ployees, transferred from other departments to replace them, and we will make
each employee whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of
our discrimination against him:
Jacob Weiss Samuel Gelber Isadore Levine
Manny Yaker Herman Reiber Jonas Podharzer
Renato Gaggero Nathan Schlesinger Jerome Camarda
William Zik William Reiber Steven Toma
Patrick Cullerton Sam David Sidney Cahn
H. Abramowitz Mac Nadler Henry Gross
Elias Kohn John Kulas Louis Radin
Adoph Friedman Leslie Larke Bernard Blanche
David Scwartz Mike Reiter Frank Baker
NEO GRAVURE PRINTING COMPANY, A SUBSIDIARY
OF THE CUNEO PRESS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
United States of America
Before the National Labor Relations Board
Twenty-second Region
Cases Nos. 22-CA-849 and 22-CA-1013
NEO GRAVURE PRINTING COMPANY, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE CUNEO PRESS, INC.
and
NEW YORK MAILERS' UNION No. 6
and
NEW YORK PAPER HANDLERS AND STRAIGHTENERS UNION No. 1
PARTY TO THE CONTRACT
STIPULATION
It is hereby stipulated by and between the attorneys or representatives for the
parties herein that:
1. Neo Gravure Printing Company, herein called Employer, is a New Jersey
corporation and is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Cuneo Press, Inc., whose
principal office is located at 2242 South Grove Street, Chicago 16, Illinois. The
Employer's only plant is located at 300 Boulevard East, Weehawken, New Jersey,
where it is engaged in the rotogravure printing of newspaper supplements, maga-
zines, catalogues and in other miscellaneous commercial printing . During the
past year, Employer, in the course and conduct of its business operations, performed
services valued at in excess of $1,000,000 at its said Weehawken plant of which,
services valued at in excess of $1,000,000 were performed in connection with the
printing of newspaper supplements and other printing materials shipped from said
plant in interstate commerce directly to States of the United States other than the
State of New Jersey wherein Employer is located. During the past year, Employer,
in the course and conduct of its business operations, performed services valued at in
excess of $1,000,000 of which services valued at in excess of $1,000,000 were per-
formed for The New York Herald Tribune, Inc., The New York Mirror, Division of
Hearst Corporation, and The New York Journal American, Division of Hearst
Consolidated Publication, Inc., each of which enterprises is a newspaper publishing
company located in the State of New York and holding membership in or subscribing
to interstate news services or publishing syndicated features and advertisements of
nationally sold products and having gross revenues in excess of $200,000 per annum.
Employer is, and has been at all times material to the instant case , engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
.2. New York Mailers' Union No. 6, located at One Beekman Street, New York 38,
New York, herein called Mailers, and New York Paper Handlers and Straighteners
Union No. 1, located at 150 Nassau Street, New York, New York, herein called
Paper Handlers, each is and has been at all times material herein a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act.
3. Prior to 1934 the Employer's plant was located at 22nd Street and 2nd Avenue,
Manhattan. At this location the Employer maintained both bindery and printing
operations. The shipping and receiving function was handled by bindery personnel.
During this period the Employer recognized and dealt with the Pressmen's, Paper
Handlers, Bindery Workers, Photo-Engravers, Machinists and Electricians Unions
upon an informal basis and without written agreement.
In 1934 the Employer moved to a new location at 601 West 26th Street, Man-
hattan in the Starrett Lehigh Building.
The Starrett Lehigh Building is located over a siding of the Lehigh Valley Railroad.
The Lehigh Valley Railroad Company through a subsidiary, the Pioneer Real Estate
Company, maintained shipping and receiving services for those tenants in the
Starrett Lehigh Building needing this service from approximately 1934 till approxi-
mately 1945 for a fixed fee per ton handled.
During this period the Motor and Bus Terminal Checkers, Platform and Office
Workers Union, Local No. 21510, ILA, represented the dock employees on the
Pioneer Real Estate Companies' Dock.
Upon moving to the new location in the Starrett Lehigh Building in 1934, the
Employer discontinued its bindery operation and decided to handle the shipping and
receiving function with the press service employees. The work of the press service
employees, as the term is used here, includes all work of bringing material to the
NEO GRAVURE PRINTING COMPANY, ETC. 1419
presses; the removal of printed material from the presses for shipment; and the
loading and unloading of trucks.
After its determination to perform this operation with its own employees, the
Employer recognized the ILA as the bargaining representative of the employees
engaged in loading and unloading trucks and such recognition was continued with-
out any written agreements until 1946 , at which time the Employer and the ILA
executed their first written contract covering employees of the Employer, whose
work is described therein . (See joint General Counsel-Respondent Exhibit 1.)
Employer's gross sales for the year 1935 were $1 ,833,491 and 13,500 tons of paper
were consumed . The average number of plant employees during this period was 205.
Of this total an average of 18 employees serviced the presses including the shipping
and receiving function . Employer has no records to determine how many employees
in this group belonged to the Paper Handlers Union or how many employees belonged
to the ILA.
Employer's press capacity for the year 1935 was:
196 tabloid pages at the average rate of 6,000 tabloids per hour. 16 of the 196
could be printed in four colors.
Employer's gross sales for the year 1950 were approximately $4,262,601 and
approximately 30,000 tons of paper were consumed . The average number of plant
employees during this year was approximately 373. Of this total approximately 55
employees were charged to the press service function including 22 believed by Em-
ployer to constitute the ILA contract unit.
Employer's press capacity for the year 1950 was:
304 tabloid pages at the average rate of 12 ,000 tabloids per hour-76 of the 304
pages could be printed in four colors.
208 magazine pages at the average rate of 7,000 magazines per hour-24 of
the 208 could be printed in four colors of 48 pages in two colors.
Employer began moving its plant from Manhattan to Weehawken in October of
1951 and completed moving May 31, 1953.
Employer's Weehawken printing plant is engineered to mass produce catalogs,
magazines and newspaper supplements by the rotogravure process.
Physically, the plant is a single floor operation containing approximately 200,000
square feet of floor space . Three loading dock platforms in use are hydraulically
adjustable to the level of the truck or trailer bed to be loaded, so that as the printed
product comes off the presses it can be rolled on the receiving vehicle. Material is
moved by electric lift trucks.
The plant is located on its own railroad siding. Rolls of paper are taken directly
from the cars to the pressers or stored in the production area.
When functioning at full capacity this operation is engineered to utilize -a carload
of paper an hour ( approximately 35 tons).
From the time paper is fed into the press it is in continuous motion pausing only
momentarily while piling up on skids, until it is rolled into the trucks at the loading
dock.
The Weehawken plant houses the largest rotogravure press in the world. This
Hoe press is capable of producing a tabloid containing 176 pages , 84 of which can
be printed in four colors , at the rate of 21,000 tabloids per hour, automatically con-
trolled for four color registration by electric eyes.
From the time the press starts until a job is completed it is not necessary to stop
the press except for accidents or emergencies Fresh rolls of paper are automatically
threaded through the press when the old roll is used up, without loss of production
speed. Paper travels through the press at a rate of 1200 feet or approximately one-
quarter of a mile a minute . A roll of paper, approximately a ton, is converted from
roll stock to the printed product, placed in skids on a loaded truck, all in 45 minutes.
Four different jobs can be printed simultaneously ; in addition , a 96-page tabloid
can be wire stitched as it comes off the press.
Employer's gross sales for the year 1954 were approximately $7,314,342 and
approximately 51,000 tons of paper were consumed . The average number of employ-
ees during this year was approximately 527. Of this total approximately 68 employ-
ees were charged to the press servicing function , including 42 believed by Employer
to constitute the ILA contract unit.
Employer's press capacity for the year 1954 was:
384 tabloid pages at one time at an average hourly rate of 21,000 tabloids per
hour. 192 pages of the 384 could be printed in four colors, the balance
monotone.
1420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
64 magazine pages in four colors at an average rate of 18 ,000 magazines per
hour.
96 magazine pages at an average rate of 6,000 magazines per hour, 48 of the
96 pages could be printed in two colors.
64 magazine pages at the rate of 4,000 magazines per hour all pages
monotone.
Employer has signed contracts with the following unions with the following juris-
dictional clauses:
New York Photo Industrial Union No. 1A, IPEU of NA (Porters & Balers)-
Article I-Section 2.
The Union is hereby recognized as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining
agent for all employes of the Employer who are now or who hereafter may
be employed as porters and balers during the entire period of this agreement
unless other certification is made by the National Labor Relations Board.
New York Photo Industrial Union No. 1A, IPEU of NA (Office Employees)-
Article I-Section 1.
The Union is hereby recognized by the Employer as the sole and exclusive
collective bargaining representative for all of the employes of said employer,
who are or hereafter may be employed in the following classifications: The
Paper Division as clerks; the Accounting Dept. as typists/stenographers, clerks
and bookkeepers; the Payroll Dept. as clerks; the Estimating Dept. as estimator;
the Messenger Service Dept. as dispatcher and foot messengers; production
operators, general stores record clerk, general store keeper, clerical asst. to the
Supt. in the process department; switchboard operator.
New York Photo Industrial Union No. 1A, IPEU of NA (Floor Boys)-
Article I-Section 2.
The Union is hereby recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
for all employes of the employer or employers who are now or who hereafter
may be employed as floor boys (helpers) during the entire period of this agree-
ment unless other certification is made by the N.L.R.B.
New York Photo-Engravers' Union No. 1 IPEU of NA-
Article 2
SECTION 1. JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES engaged to do the work
as defined in Section 4 following shall be employed in accordance with terms
and conditions hereinafter set forth.
SEC. 2. Any and all parts of processes used in the production of gravure,
cylinder, PLATES or parts thereof, shall be entirely performed under the terms
of this agreement. The washing of glass, making of blue prints, grinding of
positives, turning or moving of cylinders may be done by others than journey-
men or apprentices.
SEC. 3. The washing of cylinders before preparation and after completion
of etching of cylinders may also be done by others than journeymen or
apprentices.
SEC. 4. The process of gravure and its attendant work thereto is defined as
being and is all parts of the gravure process pertaining to the production of
gravure from the "copy", original or subject, up to the finished product, and
shall be performed under the terms of this agreement.
The following branches recognized are: 1. Photographers, 2. Etchers-re-
etchers-stagers-sensitizers-carbon printers and laydown, 3. Retoucher-Layout,
4. Cylinder Grinders, Polishers, Platers-Depositors, 5. Engravers.
It is mutually agreed insofar as lawfully possible that the jurisdiction of the
Union heretofore recognized shall be preserved. It is the intent of the parties
that this contract shall neither take away from nor add to the jurisdiction of
the New York Photo-Engravers' Union No. 1 as established by present practices.
Nothing contained herein, however, shall take away from the Union its right
to make a claim for jurisdiction over any new photo-engraving department
machinery or equipment which may be introduced.
ANY MATERIAL ENTERING THE GRAVURE PHOTOENGRAVING
DEPARTMENT TO BE REPRODUCED SHALL SERVE AS COPY AND
SHALL BE PROCESSED AND COMPLETED UNDER THE TERMS OF
THIS CONTRACT. IT IS NOT INTENDED BY THIS PROVISION TO
CHANGE PRESENT PRACTICES.
NEO GRAVURE PRINTING COMPANY, ETC. 1421
The jurisdiction of the International Photo-Engravers' Union of N.A. in-
cludes the following: Photography, the making of negatives and positives, over-
lays and masks, the making of acetate color proofs; retouching and opaquing
of negatives and positives; layout which covers the traditional set-up, assembly
and positioning of all elements as required for the completion of the gravure
processes prior to the printing of the carbon tissue. The jurisdiction shall also
cover the operation of electronic plate making devices; sensitizing of carbon
tissue, the processing and transferring the carbon tissue or roto-film to the
cylinders or plates; the staging, etching and finishing (re-etching and engrav-
ing) on the cylinders or plates, including all or any correction of cylinders or
plates; cylinder plating and grinding; cylinder polishing as presently practiced
by employees covered under this contract.
The jurisdiction clause also includes the marking of proofs and paper to
indicate color and other corrections to be made on plates and cylinders, as is
presently practiced also the exposure, development and make-up of auto-
positive film, or film of a similar nature.
New York Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union No. 2-
Section 7A.
Operation shall embrace all work while presses are running and all prepara-
tory work for running, as generally practiced in all pressrooms under the
jurisdiction of the Union.
Local No. 68 of the International Union of Operating Engineers-
Section 7.
The Union shall have jurisdiction over all work presently performed by
employees covered by this agreement and over all machinery and equipment
presently operated, maintained, or repaired by said employees. It shall also
have jurisdiction over all new equipment or machinery included within the fol-
lowing categories:
Boilers and boiler-room equipment.
Refrigeration machinery and equipment.
Air-conditioning machinery and equipment.
Water and steam lines.
High and low pressure air lines.
High and low pressure hydraulic lines.
All pumps and compressors, and any other equipment not claimed by other
trades employes by the Employers.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 164-
We do not have a formal contract with this union. What we do have is an
exchange of letters merely stipulating hours of work, wage rates, rate of over-
time, holidays, welfare and pension benefits. It is generally accepted that the
electricians' jurisdiction is in connection with all electrical maintenance.
District No. 15 of the International Association of Machinists, AE-CIO-
The closest thing to a Jurisdictional Clause is Section 16 which reads as
follows:
It is agreed by all parties to this Agreement, that if and when, during the
life of this Agreement, members of another Trade or Craft, or another in-
dividual or individuals, do any maintenance or repair work on any of the
machinery or parts thereof, coming under the jurisdiction of the machinists,
a conference shall be called immediately by the Representative of the Machin-
ists Union with the employers in order to stop and settle such infringement by
the members of another Trade or Craft, or another individual or individuals.
Paper Handlers' & Straighteners' Union No. 1 of the International Printing Press-
men and Assistants' Union of North America as referred to in paragraph 6 herein-
Section 2.
The Union shall do all work in connection with the handling of paper for
the Gravure plants at all terminals, warehouses, pressrooms, and paper ware-
rooms attached thereto ; loading, unloading, receiving , weighing, checking,
stripping, handling and bundling and shipping of all printed and unprinted waste,
handling and stripping and shipping of cores, and operating core winding
machines and unwinding machines , and operating elevators , automatic and
manual hoists , trucks and all machines used in the handling of paper and
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all other work within the jurisdiction of the Union ; also the handling of paper
in sheet form printed or imprinted , and the winding, jogging, rolling , counting,
stacking or transposing of this paper when and if required . Shop practices now
prevailing in Alco-Gravure shall continue unchanged.
Both the Pressmen 's Union and the Paper Handlers Union are subsidiary to the
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America.
Employer's gross sales for the first six months of 1961 were $3,259 ,337 and ap-
proximately 23,000 tons of paper were consumed.
4. Production employees servicing the presses perform the operations set forth
in joint General Counsel , Respondent Exhibit 2 . These production employees have
been and are divided into two groups , one of which is currently represented by the
Paper Handlers . The other group is that set forth in paragraph 7 of the Complaint
which was represented by the ILA until December 1959.
5. The NLRB has never certified the Paper Handlers at Employer 's operation. The
only unit determination by the Board involving the former ILA unit, which is set
forth in paragraph 7 of the Complaint , occurred in Case No. 22-RD-54. In that
case , an employee in the ILA unit filed a petition for decertification of the ILA as
bargaining representative on July 22 , 1959. Thereafter , pursuant to a Decision and
Direction of Election dated November 4, 1959, an election was conducted on
December 3, 1959 , which resulted in the ILA being decertified . The unit which was
stipulated to by all parties at the hearing and which was described in the Board's
Decision and Direction of Election was as follows:
All shipping department employees , including platform men, pullers , strappers
and receiving clerks, and all motorcycle delivery and pickup men at the Em-
ployer's plant in Weehawken , New Jersey , but excluding all other employees,
office clerical and professional employees , guards, watchmen and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
This unit was intended to cover and did cover all of the classifications of employees
set forth in the contract unit between ILA and Employer. The Board Decision and
Direction of Election defining the unit as above , together with footnotes , and the
record on which it was based is incorporated in this record as joint General Counsel-
Respondent Exhibit 3.
6. Neo Gravure, Art Gravure and Alco-Gravure , although competitors in the
printing industry , have been and are joint parties to collective bargaining agreements
with Paper Handlers. Their prior contract , effective from January 1, 1959 to
January 1, 1961 , is incorporated in the record as joint General Counsel-jRespondent
Exhibit 4 . Their present contract , effective January 1 , 1961 , as referred to in para-
graph 14 (b), (c) and ( d) of the Complaint herein , is incorporated in the record
as joint General Counsel -Respondent Exhibit 5.
7. On December 3, 1959 , Mailers delivered a letter to Employer indicating Mailers'
majority status in the unit formerly represented by ILA and seeking immediate recog-
nition . See joint General Counsel -Respondent Exhibit 6. Employer replied by
letter dated December 18, 1959 that it was "unwilling to deal with any union that
has not been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as a result of an
official Board election."
It added that the Mailers' request was untimely in the light of Board policy not
to hold more than one election in any one year in a particular bargaining unit.
See joint General Counsel-Respondent Exhibit 7. Mailers, by reply letter dated
December 22, 1959, contested Employer 's position with respect to the Board 's policy
and listed various methods by which a secret ballot election could be conducted.
See joint General Counsel-Respondent Exhibit 8.
Mailers thereafter received a letter dated January 14, 1960 , from Employer in
which Employer agreed to discuss the situation with Mailers. See joint General
Counsel-Respondent Exhibit 9. Employer representatives met with Mailers' repre-
sentatives on the following dates: February 11, 1960, May 3 and/or May 4, 1960,
May 20, 1960 , August 12 , 1960 , November 4, 1960 and February 17, 1961.
8. Mailers struck on February 20, 1961 and picketing has continued from that
date to the present. The signs state: New York Mailers' Union No. 6., International
Typographical Union , AFL-CIO, on strike against unfair labor practices.
9. All press service production employees , including the employees set forth in
paragraph 7, are paid on an hourly basis , and at the same time each week.
However , those employees set forth in paragraph 7 of the Complaint do not
receive the hourly rate or fringe benefits set forth in the Paper Handlers ' contract.
These individuals are compensated according to the wage schedule in effect for this
group of employees December 3, 1959, and set forth in the last labor agreement be-
tween the Employer and the ILA.
HARBOR PLYWOOD DIV., EVANS PRODUCTS CO., ETC. 1423
10. All press service production employees , including the employees set forth in
paragraph 7 of the Complaint , work in the production area and are engaged in per-
forming the work set forth in Joint Exhibit entitled "Sequence of Press Service
Operations."
11. All the press service production employees , including the employees set
forth in paragraph 7 of the Complaint , use the same washrooms , locker facilities
and punch the same time clock.
12. This stipulation shall be part of the record in the hearing in this case and
findings may be made therein on the basis of this stipulation and the facts herein set
forth.
13. This stipulation is based on facts not necessarily within the knowledge of
each party and is made without prejudice to the right of any party to introduce
additional evidence material to the issues in this case, whether or not such issues
are dealt with or otherwise touched upon by the stipulation , and without prejudice
to the right of objection as to relevancy or materiality of any of the foregoing.
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY.
Date--- ----------------- ---------------------------------------------
(Counsel for the General Counsel, National Labor
Relations Board)
Date-------------------- ---------------------------------------------
(FRANK H. INGRAM, representing Neo Gravure Printing
Co., a subsidiary of Cuneo Press, Inc.)
Date-------------------- ---------------------------------------------
(Counsel for the New York Mailers Union No. 6)
Date-------------------- ---------------------------------------------
(Counsel for the New York Paper Handlers and
Straighteners Union No. 1)
Harbor Plywood Division , Evans Products Company (formerly
Aberdeen Plywood & Veneers, Inc.) and Local 2901, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 26-CA-1145. April 05,190
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 12,1962, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices , and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, a
supporting brief, and a motion to reopen the record. The General
Counsel filed an opposition to the motion to reopen, and the Respond-
ent filed a response thereto.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
136 NLRB No. 129.