The Post Printing and Publishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 26, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 231 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of THE POST PRINTING AND PUBLISHING - COMPANY and
DENVER MAILERS UNION No. 8, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
MAILERS UNION
In the Matter of THE DENVER PUBLISHING Co. and DENVER MAILERS
UNION No. 8, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL MAILERS UNION
Cases Nos. 17-R-1005 and 17-R-1006, respectively
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
January 26,1945
On December 16, 1944, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Elections in the above entitled proceedings,' and on January 9, 1945
issued an Order Amending Direction of Elections. In its Decision
and Direction of Elections the Board found that the mailers in the
employ of each of the Companies constituted an appropriate unit;
that questions concerning representation had arisen by reason of the
refusal of the Companies to accord exclusive bargaining rights to the
petitioner herein, Denver Mailers Union No. 8, affiliated with the
International Mailers Union, herein called the IMU; and it directed
that the questions be resolved by elections in which employees in each
of the units found appropriate should choose between IMU and the
International Typographical Union, herein called the ITU, inter-
venor in the proceedings, or neither. Inter alia, the Board denied the
motion of the ITU that the Board rule that collective bargaining
rights be on an industry-wide basis, and not on the basis of shops or
city-wide. The ITU has now filed a petition for reconsideration of
the decision.2
In its Petition for.Reconsideration the ITU reiterates a conten-
tion made by it at the hearing in this matter, and which the Board
rejected," that "a vote of mailers on a nation-wide basis" be directed,
1 59 N L R. B. 1115.
2 The Petition for Reconsideration also referred to Matter of The Register and Tribune
Company and Des Moines Mailers Union No. 58, Case No. 18-R-1154 , 60 N L. R. B. 360,
now pending before the Board.
'The Decision recites. "The ITU contends that collective bargaining for all mailers
should be on an industry -wide basis and not on a shop or city-wide basis It however,
offered no evidence in support of its contention beyond the statement that that is the
60 N. L . R. B., No. 49.
231
232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"to determine the proper agency to represent mailers in collective
bargaining -with employers." In -support of this contention it argues
that to permit employees constituting " small groups of mailers in a
small number of localities throughout the country," such as the units
herein found appropriate, to vote separately on the issue of their bar-
gaining representative, would engender industrial strife, and would
adversely affect the interests of the mailers as individuals. Thus, it is
asserted that mailers, unless represented by the ITU, will lose "the
fraternal and social benefits of membership in the ITU, such as the
old age pension, mortuary, and Union Printer's Home privileges,"
and "their interest in the use of the Union Label." Adverting to its
history, the ITU states that if it "was convinced that its Mailer mem-
bers would benefit by the formation of an organization of their own,
there would be no question but what the same traditional policy of
the ITU would be followed," and the mailers would be allowed to
secede from the ITU just as other crafts have done in the past.
From the foregoing it is apparent that the ITV does not in reality
contend that the unit appropriate for collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act is national, or "industrial"
in scope, or that the prerequisites to the existence of such a unit are
present .4 Nor does it envisage actual collective bargaining for all
the mailers in the country as a single group. What the ITU does
contend is that all such employees should have the same bargaining
representative, and it requests that the choice of the representative
for each of the groups comprising, respectively, hundreds of appro-
priate bargaining units, should be determined, not by a majority of
the employees in such unit, but by a, majority of all mailers in all
units everywhere. In other words, the ITU, believing, no doubt sin-
cerely, that a majority of mailers throughout the United States prefer
to adhere to it, and that the rise of a dual organization will adversely
affect the interests of all such employees, requests the Board to prevent
the secession of its mailer members on a shop-by-shop basis.
We are mindful of the serious problem of industrial relations which
gives rise to this request. The remedy which the ITU suggests is,
however, one which we are without the, power to apply. It is elemen-
tary that this Board cannot dictate employees' choice of bargaining
historical position of the ITU The record shows that the various locals of the ITU have
always made separate contracts with separate employers in a city, and the companies
involved herein had separate contracts with the ITU The request for a ruling that
the appropriate unit be on an industry-wide basis is therefore denied."
4 Section 9 (b) of the Act provides • The Board shall decide in each case whether, in
order to insure to employees the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to
collective bargaining , and otherwise to effectuate the policies of the Act, the unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit,
plant unit, or subdivision thereof." The ITU does not contend, for example, that there
is an "employer" association coextensi%e in scope with the nation -wide group of employees
among whom it requests an election . See Matter of Shipowners Association of the Pacific
Coast, 7 N . L R. B 1002.
THE POST PRINTING AND PUBLISHING, COMPANY 233
representatives, nor prevent them from choosing to be represented by
any bona fide labor organization they may desire. Our major func-
tion under the Act is to protect and implement the right of employees
to make that choice for themselves, through the voice of the majority
of employees. The "majority" which is basic to the statutory scheme
of representation is, of course, the majority of employees in an appro-
priate bargaining unit.-, Once it is determined that a group of em-
ployees comprise an appropriate bargaining unit, and we note, again,
that the employees herein involved unquestionably constitute two such
units, we would be derelict if we denied to them the opportunity, upon
a proper showing that a question concerning representation has arisen,
and at appropriate intervals, to register their choice through the ad-
ministrative process provided under Section 9 (c) of the Act. It is
for the ITU and not the Board to convince the mailers that it is to
their best interests to retain their affiliation with the ITU.
The request of the ITU for a nation-wide election, and a reconsid-
eration of the Board's decision in the above entitled cause, is therefore
denied. '
The Post Printing and Publishing Company,6 herein called the
Post, on December 20, 1944, filed with the Board a request for recon-
sideration of the Board's finding as to the unit appropriate for collec-
tive bargaining in this company. Inasmuch as this request does not
deal with, and our decision herein will not affect, the unit found to
be appropriate in the Matter of The Denver Publishing Co.,' the two
causes are hereby severed for the purposes of the decision and order
herein set forth.
The request for reconsideration of the Board's unit finding alleges
that the Board erred in including addressograph operators in the
appropriate unit, inasmuch as they are presently represented by
another union; and that stickers, conveyor handlers, and laborers are
not properly within the unit. Inasmuch as the Board's unit finding
specifically excludes laborers, there is no necessity for ruling on the
contention as to the laborers. - However, since it appears that the
record in this case does not indicate that the addressograph operators
are presently in another suit and represented by another union, and
since there is no mention made of the duties of stickers, we shall direct
" Section 9 (a) of the Act provides . "Representatives designated or selected for the
purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate
for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates, of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment • Provided, that any individual employee
or a group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their
employer " [Italics supplied ]
Section 8 (( 5) of the Act provides : "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an em-
ployer- ... To refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees,
subject to the provisions of Section 9 (a) " [Italics supplied ]
0 Case No 17-R-1005
' Case No 17-R-1006.
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the record in this matter be reopened for the purpose of securing
additional evidence anent the functions and duties of addressograph
operators, stickers and conveyor handlers. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the record in Case No. 17-R-1005 be
reopened and the case remanded to the Regional Director for the
Seventeenth Region for the purpose of holding a further hearing in
order to receive evidence as•to whether or not addressograph operators,
stickers, and conveyor handlers are properly within the unit previ-
ously found appropriate in Case No. 17-R-1005.
0