The Madison Co.

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.