Wilson-Jones Co.

In the Matter of WILSON-JONES COMPANY, EMPLOYER and ELIZABETH PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION No. 99, AFL, PETI- TIONER Case No. 2-R-653.5-Decided December 31, 1947 Mr. John A. McLellan, of Pressmen's Home, Tenn., and Mr. Harry Wendrich, of Newark, N. J., for the Petitioner. Mr. Samuel L. Rothbard, of Newark, N. J., Mr. Louis Bora, of Elizabeth, N. J., and Mr. Frank Schaeffer, of Chicago, Ill., for the Intervenor. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New York City, on October 21, 1946, before Jerome I. Macht, 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 the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Wilson-Jones Company, a Massachusetts corporation having its principal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of loose leaf, file, and stationery equipment, record-keeping devices, and other general office supplies at plants in Elizabeth, New Jersey; Chicago, Illinois; Kansas City, Missouri; and Boston, Massachusetts. We are concerned in this proceeding solely with its Elizabeth, New Jersey, plant. During the past year, the Employer's purchases for its Elizabeth plant were valued in excess of $100,000, of which approximately 70 percent was shipped to the plant from points outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period , the Employer 's sales from its Elizabeth plant were valued in excess of $100,000, of which approximately 70 percent was shipped to points outside the State. 75 N. L. It. B., No 84. 706 WILSON-JON ES CQMPANY 707 The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. H. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS IN VOLVEI) The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em- ployer. United Paper Workers of America, Locals 148 and 148-E, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 11 L. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Intervenor asserts that a contract between it-and the Employer is a bar to this proceeding, contending that the contract was executed before the Petitioner first claimed to represent the printing pressmen of the Employer. The Intervenor further contends that, even if the Board determines that the Petitioner's claim preceded the execution of the Intervenor's contract with the Employer, the petition herein was filed more than 10 days after the claim, and, therefore, the prin- ciple of the General Electric X-Ray 1 case bars this proceeding. In a letter dated April 17, 1946, received by the Employer on April 19, 1946, the Petitioner claimed to represent a majority of the Em- ployer's printing pressmen. The Intervenor, at the hearing, at- tempted to show that a contract between it and the Employer was agreed upon on April 16, 1946, and adduced evidence indicating that two out of a number of signatures thereto were affixed on that date. However, the contract itself recites, "This Agreement entered into this 23rd day of April, 1946 . . .," and "This contract shall remain in full force and effect from the date hereof . . ." We believe that a clear recital in the contract that it was executed and became effective on April 23 is not negated by the oral testimony presented. We find, therefore, that the contract was executed on April 23, 1946. On April 26, 1946, the Petitioner filed its representation petition with the Board. The petition was technically defective in that it had not been notarized. Accordingly, the Regional Director returned the petition for notarization. On April 30, 1946, the Petitioner refiled its properly notarized petition. The Petitioner originally filed its petition within 10 days of its claim to representation, as required by the General Electric X-Ray 1 Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corp, 67 N L R B. 997. 766972-48-vol. 75-46 708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rule. This was sufficient to prevent the bargaining contract that, we have found, was executed on April 23, 1946, from being a bar unless the date of refill ng, rather than of filing of the petition is to be the test by which we apply the 10-day rule. We are of the opinion that the date of original filing of the petition rather than of refiling should control where, as here, the petition was only technically defective and the defect was promptly corrected. Accordingly, we find that the Intervenor'' contract with the Employer does not bar a present determination of representatives. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (I) and,Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Petitioner seeks a unit of printing pressmen and their assistants employed by the Employer at its Elizabeth plant, excluding the fore- man. The Intervenor contends that only a comprehensive production and maintenance unit 2 is appropriate, because of a long bargaining history on this basis.3 The Employer did not participate in this pro- ceeding. The printing pressmen herein constitute a highly skilled, well i ecognized craft group,4 employed in an industry in which craft units of pressmen are frequently encountered.5 Under these circum- stances, we believe that the printing pressmen involved in this pro- ceeding also may, if they so desire, constitute a separate unit, not- withstanding the Board's previous more inclusive unit determinations and a bargaining history based thereon.' On the other hand, the pressmen also may, if they desire, continue to be represented as part of the production and maintenance unit. Under these circumstances, the Board will not make any unit determination until it has first ascertained the desires of the employees concerned. 3 The production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Elizabeth, New Jersey, and Chicago, Illinois, plants are included in the same unit. 3In 191x0, in an election directed by the Board, with the Petitioner and the Intervenor on the ballot, the Pressmen voted 8 to 2 for the Intervenor The pressmen were thereafter included in the production and maintenance unit In 1941, the Petitioner again sought a unit of pressmen, but, on January 30, 1942, the Board dismissed the petition Matter of Wilson-Jones Company, 38 N L R B 735 The Intervenor has bargained for the produc- tion and maintenance employees of the Employer, including printing pressmen, since 1938. ' See Matter of Lloyd Hollister, Inc, 68 N L. R B 733, Matter of Gillette Safety Razor Company, 65 N L R li 1286 G See Matter of Lloyd Hollister, Inc, sepia 9 Section 9 (h) (2) of the amended Act provides that the Board shall not "decide that any craft unit is inappropriate on the ground that a different unit has been established by a prior Board determination, unless a majority of the employees in the proposed craft unit vote'against separate representation." See Matter of Westinghouse -Electric Corporation, 75 N L R. B 638. WILSON-JONES COMPANY 709 We shall direct that an election be held among all printing press- men and their assistants employed by the Employer at its Elizabeth plant, excluding the foreman and other supervisors as defined in the amended Act. If, in this election, the employees select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargain- ing unit; if they select the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indi- cated a desire to remain part of the comprehensive production and maintenance unit now represented by the Intervenor. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with Wilson-Jones Company, Elizabeth, New Jersey , an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty ( 30) days from the date of this Direction , under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc- tor for the Second Region , and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the employees in the voting group described in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction , including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca- tion or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election , to determine whether they desire to be represented by Elizabeth Printing Pressmen and Assist- ants' Union No. 99, AFL , or by United Paper Workers of America, C. I. 0., Locals 148 and 148-E, for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, or by neither. MEMBEES HousTON and MTJRDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.