The Post Printing and Publishing Co.

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