Jahn-Tyler Printing and Publishing Co.

JAHN-TYLER PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY 167 Jahn-Tyler Printing and Publishing Company and Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local No. 22, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-3560. April 15,1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Max Steinfeld, hearing of- ficer. 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 an Arizona corporation engaged in the printing and lithographing business. It produces printed materials valued at more than $100,000 per year, which it supplies to instrumentalities of interstate commerce, to public utilities or transit systems whose gross annual revenues exceed the minima required by the Board's standards for the assertion of jurisdiction, and to enterprises producing or handling goods destined for out-of-State shipment or performing services outside the State, which goods and services exceed $50,000 in value per year. These customers of the Employer directly utilize such printed materials in their own products, services, and processes. We find, on the basis of the above data, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it would ef- fectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.' 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit limited to the Employer's lithographic production employees. The Employer agrees that a single-employer unit of these employees is appropriate. The Inter- venor, which presently represents all letterpress and lithographic pro- duction employees of members of the Employing Printers Association of the Salt River Valley, does not contest the craft status of the litho- graphic production employees, but nevertheless contends that only an associationwide unit is appropriate for bargaining purposes? Its position, in substance, is that the Employer has been and remains a member of the Association, and that it has historically bargained as I Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481 2 Phoenix Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 250 was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of a contractual interest. 8 We find it unnecessary to pass upon the Inteivenor's further contention that its con- tract is a bar in view of our finding that the Petitioner's proposed unit is inappropriate. 112 NLRB No. 34. 168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD part of the Association on a multiemployer basis. The Petitioner contends that there has been no effective bargaining on a multi- employer basis with the Intervenor or, in any event, that the Employer is no longer a part of such a unit. The Employing Printers Association of the Salt River Valley was organized on an informal basis in 1944 by the newspapers and job shop printers of Phoenix, Arizona, including the Employer, to ne- gotiate with various unions in the graphic arts industry. It has no fixed membership, collects no dues, and functions through 2 unpaid officers and a 5-member contract and wage scale committee which rep- resents the Association in bargaining negotiations. Those employers who desire to do so, meet in August before expiration of the bar- gaining agreement with the Typographical Union, to discuss their common position and to appoint the committee. The committee then proceeds to negotiate binding agreements with the Typographical Union, the Intervenor, the Bookbinders Union, and other unions rep- resenting employees employed by members of the Association. The Employer has participated in joint bargaining, through the commit- tee, with the Typographical Union for its typographical employees, and with the Intervenor for both its letterpress and lithographic pro- duction employees. Glen Tyler, executive vice president of the Employer, was appointed a member of the contract and wage scale committee in August 1953, just prior to negotiations with the Typographical Union. When the terms of the agreement with the Typographical Union were settled, Tyler withdrew from the committee and was replaced. He did not participate in the negotiations with the Intervenor, and informed the committee that he might not go along with any agreement which might be reached with the Intervenor because he was unable to obtain quali- fied lithographic employees through that organization. Tyler did not, however, indicate that he thereby intended to resign from the Associ- ation. When an agreement with the Intervenor was reached, a copy was sent to the Employer under the accepted procedure, and the Employer has put the new minimum wage scale for letterpress em- ployees into effect. Its lithographic employees' wage scale was not affected as they were already receiving more than the scale set by the new agreement. At the hearing, the Employer stated that it wished to deal with the Petitioner for a single-employer unit of its litho- graphic production employees. In accordance with the Intervenor's contention, we find that the pattern of bargaining described above has been multiemployer in nature. The contract and wage scale committee is the authorized representative of the Association in negotiating with unions, and the THE TEXAS COMPANY 169 terms of the agreements so reached have been put into effect by all the employers concerned, including the Employer.' The record does not establish that the Employer has withdrawn from membership in the Association. At most, it has indicated a de- sire to pursue an individual course of action with respect to bargaining for its lithographic production employees only. It has not indicated an intention to abandon joint bargaining through the Association for its typographical and letterpress employees. As the Employer has not unequivocally evinced an intent henceforth to pursue a course of individual action with regard to its labor relations, we believe that the bargaining history is controlling in determining the appropriate unit in this proceeding.5 We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition, as the proposed unit is too limited in scope. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 1IEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. ° Capital Dzstrict Beer Distiibutors Association, at al., 109 NLRB 176; Fish Industry Committee, 98 NLRB 696 5 Washington Hardware Company, 95 NLRB 1001; Atlas Storage Division, P A V Atlas Industrtal Centel , 100 NLRB 1443 , Pioneer Incorporated, 90 NLRB 1848. The Texas Company, Port Arthur Works and Port Arthur Ter- minal and Albert 0. Lawless, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of Others, Petitioner and Local Union No. 390, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL. Case No. 39-RD-37. April 15, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clifford H. Potter, 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 engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union is no longer the representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. The Union is a labor organization certified by the Board and cur- rently recognized by the Employer as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of the employees designated in the petition. 112 NLRB No. 33