The Madison Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 7, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 135 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of THE MADISON COMPANY,' EMPLOYER and AMALGAM-
ATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 9, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 7-RRC-8Y3.-Decided September 7, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section '9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jerome H. Brooks,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a Michigan corporation, with its only place of
business located at 310 `Vest Congress Street, Detroit, Michigan,
where it is engaged primarily in lithographing or offset printing.
The Employer prepares advertising pamphlets, advertising promo-
tion material, brochures, 'office forms, and other lithographic items.
During the year 1949, the Employer's purchases were approximately
$151,000 in value, of which approximately $6,500 represented direct
shipments to the Employer's place of business in Detroit from points
located outside the State of Michigan. During this period, the Em-
ployer purchased paper in the amount of approximately $62,000
from wholesalers whose only places of business are located in Detroit,
Michigan. However, a considerable portion of the purchases of paper
made by these companies represented shipments to them from points
located outside the State of Michigan. During the year 1949, the
Employer's total sales were approximately $528,000 in value, of which
none represented shipments directly from the Employer to points
located outside the State of Michigan. However, of the Employer's
total sales, approximately $237,600 in value were to such companies
as Dearbon Motor Company, Stran Steel Division of the Great Lakes
Steel Corporation, divisions of Chrysler Corporation, Hiram Walker,
and Ferguson Tractor Company.
3 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
91 NLRB No. 26.
135
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that,
in view of the small proportion of its business which represents inter-
state transactions, its operations do not affect commerce within the
meaning of the Act. A substantial proportion of the Employer's
business, however, represents transactions with customers who are ex-
tensively engaged in interstate commerce and, in our opinion, the Em-
ployer's services to these customers are vital to the marketing of their
.merchandise. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged, in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and the Employer's motion
to dismiss is therefore denied.2
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit ^ which it describes as
constituting all the Employer's lithographic production employees.
This unit would consist of the following classifications of employees :
artists-layout, multilith operators, offset pressmen, feeder pressmen,
opaquers, photographers, platemakers, and. strippers. The Employer
would also include art and copy preparation employees, the compositor
for reproduction, the multigraph operator, the proofreader, typists,
the cutter, finishing workers, bindery workers, and general workers
in unit .3
The Employer, as hereinbefore set forth, is principally engaged in
the lithographic business. Approximately 97 percent of its gross
sales are of lithographic products. The remaining 3 percent of its
sales are of letterpress work. The Employer states that it does not.
have any fast letterpress equipment and that although it has three.
letterpresses, such equipment is kept primarily as a convenience for
its customers and as an adjunct to its lithographic work. The Em-
ployer asserts that because of the disproportionate amount of litho-
graphic and letterpress work which is produced, it does not operate
what is known in the printing industry as-a.-combination or mixed
shop, but instead has a lithographic shop. The Employer contends
therefore that as all its employees, excluding the typesetter and letter-
press man, are engaged in lithographic production, they should be
2 Exline Loudon Company , 90 NLRB 1003 ; Koopman:Neumer 88 NLRB 612.
3 The Employer takes no definite position with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of
its one letterpress man and its one typesetter , but at the hearing indicated that even
though they are not lithographic employees , as they are the only two employees who
would be unrepresented , on an equitable basis it believed that they should also be
included in the unit.
THE MADISON COMPANY 137
included in the unit. On the other hand, the Petitioner asserts that
it is requesting the traditional lithographic bargaining unit which the
Board has consistently found to be appropriate.
Although we do not agree with the Employer that it does not have
a combination shop, we find merit in its contention as to the appro-
priate unit in this case. The record discloses that the Employer
utilizes both lithographic and letterpress printing processes and we
consider that such an operation constitutes a combination shop. ir-
respective of whether one or the other process happens to be more
dominant in a particular employer's shop. The Board has in com-
bination shop cases found that all employees engaged in the litho-
graphic process form a cohesive unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective ba.rgaining.4 It is true that, as contended by the Petitioner,
this "process" unit has frequently consisted of classifications of em-
ployees similar to those which it now seeks to represent.' Although
in particular cases categories of employees such as those whom the
Employer would include, that is, bindery and composing room em-
ployees, have been excluded from- the unit,c the basis for exclusion of
these employees has been that they were either engaged in the letter-
press printing process or served both letterpress and lithographic
processes to such an extent that their work could not be said to be
related principally to either one. However, it is quite clear from the
record that the operations of this Employer are such that the classi-
fications of employees who would usually be excluded from the unit
are here directly and predominantly engaged in lithographic work.
Under these circumstances, we shall include these employees in the
unit. We find therefore that the appropriate unit in this case consists
of all employees engaged primarily in the lithographic process. The
letterpress man and the typesetter are excluded because they are not
so engaged. In this instance the "process" unit is composed of all
employees in the shop with the exceptions heretofore noted.
As the Petitioner has failed to establish the necessary showing of
interest among the employees in the unit we have found appropriate,
we shall dismiss the petition, without prejudice to filing a new peti-
tion at such time as the required showing of representation can be
made.
4 Fwing Printing Company, 85 NLRB 237; McDonald Printing Company, 81 NLRB
481 ; Commercial Printers, Inc., 74, NLRB 1135 ; Lord Baltimore Press, Inc., 73 NLRB
811 ; Commercial Printing Company, Inc., 73 NLRB 159; Roberts and Son, 71 NLRB
294; Foote t Davies, 66 NLRB 416; R. R. Donnelley t Sons Company, 59 NLRB 122;
Con P. Curran Printing Company, 57 NLRB 185.
5 See footnote 4, supra.
6 See footnote 4, supra.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.