Wlison-Jones Co.

In the Matter Of WILSON-JONES COMPANY and EMPLOYEES BENEVO- LENT ASSOCIATION OF ELIZABETH, N. J., INC. In the Matter of WILSON-JONES COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL AS- SOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 315, A. F. L. In the Matter Of WILSON-JONES COMPANY and ELIZABETH TYPO- GRAPHICAL UNION No. 150 Cases Nos. R-1581, R-158, and R-1583, respectively.-Decided March 02, 1940 General Office Supplies Maniufacti rwq Iialustry-litt,estigotiou of Repie- sentatives: controversy concerning representation of employees. rival organi- zations; controversy concerning appropriate unit or units; employer refuses to recognize and bargain with petitioning unions because of exclusive bargain- ing contract with industrial union ; exclusive bargaining contract entered into with industrial union subsequent to filing of petitions by two of the other con- tending unions and after all the other contending unions had sought recogni- tion from the Company held no bar to proceeding ; one petition for dismissed where unit sought composed of industrial employees in one plant found in- appropriate-unit appropriate for collective bargaiuiuq: possible two plant unit or craft units: membership bargaining contract in 1937 with industrial union covering one plant, wage and hour provisions of which observed at other plant, followed by exclusive bargaining contracts in 1938 and 1939 covering both plants ; evidence of prior bargaining by one craft and of request for rec- ognition by all other contending unions before 1939 contract entered into; determination of unit or units held dependent upon desires of craft employees ; (Smith, specially concurring) history of collective bargaining on part of ma- chinist craft group warrants separate election to determine unit in which this group to be included ; no history of collective bargaining on part of typo- graphical and pressmen's craft groups prior to or after 1938 exclusive bargain- ing contract of industrial union; in as much as Madden and Leiserson hold that separate elections be held for employees in typographical and pressmen's craft groups Smith concurs in view of Madden as to character and effects of such election; ( Leiserson concurring in part and dissenting in part) dissents as to two plant unit, industrial union did not represent majority of employees at one plant when 1938 exclusive bargaining contract entered into; concurs as to election for machinist craft group on ground Board had previously certi- fied such a craft group in other plant ; concurs in elections for all craft groups to determine choice between crafts and one plant industrial unit-Elections Ordered: effect of elections upon outstanding collective agreement: outstanding exclusive bargaining contract covering two plant industrial unit no bar to elec- tions under doctrine of Globe case since made after representation proceedings begun; ( Madden ) recognition and substantive terms of contract otherwise valid inoperative as to any craft upon establishment in these proceedings of such craft as a separate bargaining unit with a statutory representative for such craft. 21 N. L. R. B., No. 92. 943 944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. Millard Midonick, for the Board. Cox d Wellburg, by Mr. William H. D. Cox, of Newark, N. J., for the Company. Mr. Francis P. Meehan, Mr. Lawrence S. Hickey, and Mr. Thomas Fruda, of Elizabeth, N. J., for the E. B. A. Isserman, Isserman d Kapelsohn, by Mr. Sol D. Kapelsohn, Mr. Morris Isserman, and Mr. Jack Lerner, of Newark, N. J.; and Mr. Paul R. Hutchings, of Washington. D. C., for the I. A. M. Mr. Harry Wendrich,, of Newark, N. J., for the Typographical Union and the Pressmen's Union. Mr. Samuel L. Rothbard and Mr. E. L. Howard, of Newark, N. J., for the United. Mr. Daniel J. Harrington, of counsel to the Board. DECISION DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On January 31, 1939, Employees Benevolent Association of Eliza- beth, N. J., Inc., herein called the E. B. A., on February 11, 1939, International Association of Machinists, Lodge 315, A. F. L., herein called the I. A. M., and on May 13, 1939, Elizabeth Typographical Union No. 150, A. F. L., herein called the Typographical Union, and International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, herein called the Pressmen's Union, in the name of the Typographical Union,' respectively filed with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) separate petitions, each alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Wilson-Jones Company,2 Eliza- beth, New Jersey, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On August 25, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules ' During the hearing, hereinafter mentioned . evidence as adduced showing that the peti- tion was presented by both unions in the name of the Typographical Union Both unions appeared at the hearing by the same representative 2 Designated in the petitions filed by the I A M and by the Typographical Union and the Pressmen's Union as Wilson Jones Co. and Wilson Jones Company, respectively. At the hearing counsel for the Board moved to amend the name of the Company in the peti- tions by substituting the name of Wilson -Jones Company for the above titles The motion was granted. WILSON-JONES COMPANY 945 and Regulations-Series 2, ordered investigations upon the petitions and authorized the Regional Director to conduct the investigations and to provide for appropriate hearings upon due notice. On Octo- ber 4, 1939, the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, ordered the three cases consolidated for the purposes of hearing and all other purposes, and that one record of such hearing be made. On October 5, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the E. B. A., upon the I. A. M., upon the Typographical Union,,, and upon United Loose Leaf and Blank Book Workers, Local In- dustrial Union, No. 148, herein called the United, a labor organiza- tion claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant to the notice a hearing was held on October 16, 1939, at New York City and on October 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, 1939, at Newark, New Jersey, before Mapes Davidson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, the E. B. A., the I. A. M., and the United were represented by counsel, the Typographical Union and the Pressmen's Union by Harry Wendrich, State Representative of the Pressmen's Union, and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing the I. A. M. and the Typographical Union and the Pressmen's Union moved to amend their petitions with respect to the units claimed by them to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. The Trial Exam- iner granted the notions. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On November 21, 1939, oral argument was had before the Board in Washington, D. C. The E. B. A., represented by one of its mem- bers, and the Company, the I. A. M., and the United, represented by counsel, participated in the oral argument. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Wilson-Jones Company is a Massachusetts corporation, having its principal office and place of business at Chicago, Illinois, and having 8 See footnote 1 946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD manufacturing plants situated in Elizabeth, New Jersey; Chicago, Illinois; San Francisco, California; and either Kansas City, Kansas, or Kansas City, Missouri. The present proceeding involves only the plants at Elizabeth and Chicago. The company is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of loose-leaf, file and station- ery equipment, indices, record-keeping devices, and other general office supplies. Approximately 70 per cent by value of paper, press and binder board, leather, imitation leather, steel, brass, fabrics, and other materials, aggregating in value approximately $245,000, purchased for use in manufacture at the Elizabeth plant for the first six months of 1939, were shipped to the Elizabeth plant from outside the State of New Jersey and about 75 per cent by value of finished products, valued at approximately $485,000, were shipped during the same period from the plant to points outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period about 95 per cent of the raw materials pur- chased for use in manufacture at the Chicago plant, aggregating in value approximately $460,000, were shipped to the plant from outside the State of Illinois and approximately 75 per cent of the finished products, valued at approximately $1,200,000, were shipped in that period out of the State from the plant. In the regular course of business raw materials aggregating approximately $10,000 and fin- ished products aggregating approximately $130,000, were transported between the Elizabeth and Chicago plants during this period. The Company sells its finished products to wholesalers located through- out the United States and employs 50 salesmen who visit customers throughout the United States. The Company normally employs approximately 350 employees at the Elizabeth plant and approximately 850 employees at its Chicago plant. The Company concedes that it is engaged in interstate commerce, within the meaning of the Act. 4 II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Employees Benevolent Association of Elizabeth, N. J., Inc., is an unaffiliated labor organization, incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey, admitting to its membership all persons em- ployed in the Elizabeth plant of the Company for a period of six weeks, excluding salaried employees, employees "such as company executives and foremen," and employees engaged strictly in a super- visory capacity. International Association of Machinists, Lodge 315, is a local of International Association of Machinists, a labor organization affiliated .The above facts relative to the business of the Company at its Chicago and Elizabeth plants were stipulated to by the Company and counsel for the Board. WILSON-JONES COMPANY 947 with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership tool and die makers , machinists , maintenance machinists, helpers, and apprentices employed in the Elizabeth plant. Elizabeth Typographical Union, No. 150, is a local of International Typographical Union, a labor organization affiliated with the Ameri- can Federation of Labor. It admits to membership typesetters em- ployed in the Elizabeth plant, including the foreman of the printing department. International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor, admitting to its membership printing pressmen , assist- ants, paper cutters, and stock handlers employed in the Elizabeth plant. United Loose Leaf and Blank Book Workers , Local Industrial Union, No. 148, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations . It admits to membership production and maintenance employees in all of the Company 's plants. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION In 1936 the Typographical Union and the Pressmen's Union un- successfully attempted to organize employees at the Elizabeth plant. This was the first attempt to organize these employees. In January 1937, following this effort , the I . A. Al. organized the plant tool and die makers , machinists, maintenance machinists , helpers and appren- tices, and claims to represent a majority of such employees at all times since then. During the early part of 1937 representatives of the I. A. M. acted in conjunction with a committee created by various American Federation of Labor unions to organize other employees in the plant. About May 1937 the I. A. M. submitted a proposed agree- ment to the Company covering tool and die makers and machinists in the plant. In July 1937 the I. A. M. obtained recognition as the bargaining representative of its members in the Elizabeth plant and further obtained an oral understanding, but not an agreement, that the Company would adhere at its Elizabeth plant to the same terms for I. A. M. members as were stated in an outstanding contract between the Company and District No. 8, of the International Asso- ciation of Machinists, relating to wages, hours of service , and other working conditions of tool and die makers , machinists , apprentices, and machine hands in the Chicago plant of the Company. This Chicago contract was to continue in force until April 30, 1938, and thereafter, unless terminated by either party thereto "desiring a change" upon 30 days' notice to the other. There is no showing that such notice ever was given by either party. 948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In March 1937 the United organized a majority of the production and maintenance employees in the Chicago plant, but was unsuccessful in a campaign to organize employees in the same classifications at the Elizabeth plant. In February 1938 it made another attempt to or- ganize employees at the Elizabeth plant and succeeded in enrolling many as members. At that time it had as members, and was desig- nated as exclusive bargaining representative, by a majority of the employees of both plants. Previously, on May 1, 1937, the Company and the United, in connection with the settlement of a strike at the Chicago plant, had made a contract in which the company recognized the United as bargaining representative of its members and which provided for wages, hours of service, and other working conditions of employees at the Chicago plant. By its terms the contract was to remain in effect for one year and could be renewed by mutual agree- ment of the parties. Although the Elizabeth plant was not covered by the contract, the Company observed the provisions of the contract at that plant in so far as they related to wages and hours of service. On May 1, 1938, the Company and the United entered into another contract in which the Company recognized the United as exclusive bargaining agency for all the Company's employees at the Elizabeth and Chicago plants. It is not entirely clear whether recognition was also extended with respect to employees at the plants of the Com- pany in San Francisco and Kansas City. The contract contains a provision that "one document shall cover both the Elizabeth and Chicago plants of the Company." The Company and the United contend that the employees at Elizabeth whom the I. A. M. here claim to represent were covered by this contract, and by the earlier contract with the United, above-mentioned, certain of the terms of which were more favorable to tool and die makers and machinists than those of the 1937 contract between the Company and District No. 8, of the International Association of Machinists. By its terms the 1938 contract of the Company and the United was to remain in effect for a period of one year and thereafter from year to year unless modified by mutual agreement. Either party at the end of any contract year could terminate or request modification of the contract by giving 30 days' written notice to the other party prior to the end of the contract year. On May 1, 1939, after the filing of the peti- tions herein by the E. B. A. and by the I. A. M., the Company and the United entered into a third contract regarding wages, hours of service, and other working conditions of all the Company's "factory employees." In it the Company recognized the United as the exclu- sive bargaining agency for all such "factory employees." Appar- ently, it was the intent of the parties to include in this contract employees at all plants of the Company, particularly the Elizabeth WILSON-JONES COMPANY 949 and Chicago plants. Employees of the Elizabeth plant were rep- resented in the negotiations carried on in Chicago by the United with the Company leading to both the 1938 and the 1939 contracts. None of the parties herein denies the claim of the United that it rep- resented a majority of the employees in both plants at the time the 1938 and 1939 contracts were signed, and we find that it did represent such a majority. The E. B. A. was incorporated and began organizing employees in the Elizabeth plant in May 1938. Several times in 1938 and 1939 the E. B. A. requested the Company to recognize that organization as the sole bargaining agency for the production and maintenance em- ployees at the Elizabeth plant. As mentioned below, the E. B. A. claims to represent all such employees except tool and die makers, machinists, and machinists' helpers. Sometime prior to May 1, 1939, as a basis for collective bargaining, a collective contract was sub- mitted by it to the Company covering those employees. The Com- pany refused to recognize and bargain collectively with the E. B. A., on the ground that it was precluded from so doing by its outstanding contract with the United. It stated that it would not consider enter- ing into any contract with the E. B. A. pending a determination by the Board of the exclusive bargaining agency of the employees whom the E. B. A. sought to represent. In January 1939 the I. A. M. submitted to the Company a closed- shop contract covering tool and die makers, machinists, specialists, helpers , and apprentices . This contract was intended to cover em- ployees in these classifications at least at the Elizabeth plant, and was submitted upon request of I. A. M. members working there who desired a separate agreement for themselves . The Company in- formed the I. A. M. that it would not recognize the I . A. M. as bargaining agency for the above employees at Elizabeth unless that organization was certified as such agency by the Board. In January or February 1939 the Typographical Union and the Pressmen's Union requested the Company to recognize them as bar- gaining representatives of their members employed in the Elizabeth plant. The Company refused this request, stating that the contract between the Company and the United then in effect precluded it from doing so. Inasmuch as the 1937 contract between the Company and the United terminated prior to the filing of the petitions in the instant proceeding, it constitutes no bar to an investigation and determina- tion of the question concerning representation of employees of the Company. The 1938 contract between the Company and the United terminated on April 30, 1939. The petitions of the E. B. A. and of the I. A. M. were filed on January 31, 1939, and February 11, 1939, 253032-41-vol. 21--61 950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respectively. Thus these petitions were filed prior to the date on which notice of termination could be given by the parties under the provision therefor, above mentioned, in the contract. Moreover the 1938 contract in fact has since terminated. It, therefore, is no barb Nor does the exclusive bargaining contract of May 1, 1939, between the Company and the United constitute a bar to proceedings on the petitions of the E. B. A. and the I. A. M., for it was entered into subsequent to the filing of the petitions of these organizations.6 Moreover, the contract was entered into after all the other contending labor organizations had sought recognition from the Company and at a time when the Company had knowledge of the claims of the rival organizations. It was not claimed by any party that the 1939 contract constituted a bar to the proceeding. We find that questions have arisen concerning representation of employees of the Company. Iv. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the questions concerning representation which have arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. v. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS The United claims that the appropriate unit is one composed of all production and maintenance employees in all of the Company's plants, excluding executives, foremen, supervisors, and office clerical help, or, in the alternative, all such employees in the Elizabeth and Chicago plants of the Company. The I. A. M. claims as an appropriate bargaining unit tool and die makers, machinists, maintenance machinists, helpers, and appren- tices in the Elizabeth plant, but excluding die setters. The E. B. A. contends that all production and maintenance em- ployees at the Elizabeth plant, including printing-department em- ployees, but excluding tool and die makers, machinists, machinists' helpers, clerical employees, and supervisors with authority to hire and discharge or who are on salary, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. 5 Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines and Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America ; Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines and Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, 9 N. L. R B 557, p 570 and cases there cited. °Matter of Wickwire Spencer Steel Company and Federated Industrial Union, 18 N L. R B. 372 WILSON-JONES COMPANY 951 The Typographical Union and the Pressmen's Union contend that all typesetters in the Elizabeth plant under the jurisdiction of Inter- national Typographical Union, including the foreman of the print- ing department, as well as printing pressmen, assistants, paper cut- ters, and stock handlers under the jurisdiction of the Pressmen's Union comprise an appropriate bargaining unit. However, both or- ganizations state they have no objection to two units being found proper, one composed of the employees under the jurisdiction of the Typographical Union and the other of the employees under the jurisdiction of the Pressmen's Union. Although the Company declares that its position in the matter is entirely neutral, it also states that it does not consider the units sought by the I. A. M. and the Typographical Union and Pressmen's Union as appropriate for collective bargaining. In support of their contentions with respect to the appropriate unit or units, the various parties introduced evidence concerning the type of work performed by and the relationship between different classes of employees especially in the Elizabeth plant, the integration of the various departments in that plant, and the relationship with respect to operations and labor policies between the Elizabeth and the Chicago plants. Evidence was also adduced by the various labor organizations to show representation in the respective units claimed by them. The United contends, as stated above, that the appropriate bargain- ing unit consists of, production and maintenance employees in all four of the Company's pants, excluding executives, foremen, super- visors, and office clerical help, or, in the alternative, all such em- ployees in the Elizabeth and Chicago plants of the Company. The only plants involved in the present proceeding are the Elizabeth and Chicago plants. No testimony was adduced with respect to the oper- ations or labor relations at the other plants. The past history of collective bargaining in the Elizabeth and Chicago plants and the extent of organization in these plants establish, with certain modifica- tions hereinafter noted, the appropriateness of a single industrial bargaining unit embracing all employees at both plants. A majority of the employees of both plants are organized, and since February 1938 have been organized, into a single local. As stated above, the wages and hours provisions of the 1937 contract between the Com- pany and the United relating to the Chicago plant were given effect at the Elizabeth plant, and employees of both plants were repre- sented in the negotiations leading to, and were covered by, the 1938 contract between the Company and the United. In this contract the United; as above mentioned, was recognized as the sole bargaining. representative of all the Company's employees at both plants. At the 952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD time the 1938 contract was made and ever since the United repre- sented a majority of all employees at both plants. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that a single industrial unit composed of all em- ployees at both the Elizabeth and Chicago plants, save for modifica- tions hereinafter noted, could constitute an appropriate collective bargaining unit. Mr. Smith concurs in this finding in his separate opinion. Mr. Leiserson dissents from it in his separate opinion. The contention of the United as to specific classifications of employees which it claims properly should be included and excluded from such a unit finds support in the collective bargaining history mentioned and comports with decisions of the Board. We acquiesce in this definition of the appropriate industrial unit for the two plants. On May 29, 1939, in Matter of Wilson-Jones Company and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers International Union, Local No. 6; Matter of Wilson-Jones Company and International Associa- tion of Machinists, District No. 8,' a representation proceeding, we found that tool and die makers and maintenance machinists employed in the Chicago plant of the Company constituted a unit appropriate for collective bargaining and we certified International Association of Machinists, District No. 8, as the exclusive representative of such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. On the basis of our certification in that proceeding these employees are excluded from the industrial unit we have found could be appropriate. Although, as above stated, the Typographical Union and the Press- men's Union filed a joint petition for certification as representatives of employees in the Elizabeth plant under the jurisdiction of both organizations in a single unit, they have no objection to the estab- lishment of a separate craft unit for employees under the jurisdiction of the Typographical Union and one for employees under the juris- diction of the Pressmen's Union. Such employees have traditionally organized as separate crafts. We, therefore, are of the opinion that their claim to representation of employees at the Elizabeth plant should be treated as involving two respective craft units, and shall so consider their claim." It appears from the record that the employees at the Elizabeth plant whom the I. A. M., the Typographical Union, and the Press- men's Union, respectively, claim to represent could properly constitute separate appropriate craft bargaining units. All members of the Board concur in this, although as to the appropriateness of units comprising the employees represented by the Typographical Union 712 N. L. R. B. 1351. See Matter of Chicago Malleable Castings Company and International Union of Oper- ating Engineers, Local No. 399 and International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local No. 7, 16 N. L R B. 15. WILSON-JONES COMPANY 953 and the Pressmen's Union, respectively, Mr. Smith concurs solely on the special ground set forth in his separate opinion. It also appears that the respective employees at the Elizabeth plant claimed to be represented by each of these unions could form part of the single larger industrial unit covering two plants which we have found could be appropriate. Mr. Smith concurs in this, although in respect to the employees represented by the Typographical Union and those by the Pressmen's Union, respectively, his concurrence also rests upon the special ground stated in his separate opinion. Mr. Leiser- son, as stated in his separate opinion, agrees that each of these groups of employees could be part of an industrial unit but delimits such unit as confined to the employees of the single plant at Elizabeth. Under the circumstances we will be guided by the desires of the em- ployees themselves as indicated in the elections directed .9 We shall direct that a separate election be held among the employees whom each of these unions claims to represent to determine whether they desire to be represented by such Union, by the United, or by neither. Upon the results in each such election will depend our determination of the appropriateness of the employees involved constituting a sep- arate unit or part of the industrial unit. If a majority in any such election designates the United as its representative for collective bargaining, then the employees among whom such election is held will become part of the two-plant industrial unit. If a majority in any such election designates the respective union other than the United as its representative, then the employees among whom such election is held will constitute a separate craft unit. Inasmuch as we have found that a single industrial unit composed of all employees at both the Elizabeth and Chicago plants, with certain modifications, would constitute an appropriate collective bar- gaining unit, save as the crafts may be separately established, the bargaining unit confined to production and maintenance employees in the Elizabeth plant, only, sought to be established by the E. B. A., is in all events not appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining. The petition of the E. B. A., therefore, will be dismissed. vI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES All the labor organizations involved submitted at the hearing union application, membership, or authorization cards and other evi- dence in proof of their respective claims of representation. Inas- much as the unit of employees in which the E. B. A. requests certifi- cation is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, 9Matte> of Globe Machine and Stamping Co. and Metal Potmheis Lillian, Local Vo. 3, 3 N L R B 294, and snbsegnent casev 954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD it is unnecessary for us to consider the extent of its representation among employees in such unit. The United did not file a petition in the instant proceeding and does not desire that an election be held. Moreover, it has an out- standing collective contract with the Company granting it exclusive recognition as bargaining representative of all employees at the Eliz- abeth and Chicago plants, including employees in the craft units which the I. A. M., the Typographical Union, and the Pressmen's Union, respectively, claim to represent. Although it is apparent from what we have stated above that the mere inclusion,in the contract of terms covering such craft employees or according the United recog- nition as their representative did not necessarily bring them within the industrial unit claimed by the United to be appropriate, we con- clude that the contract, which is not a closed-shop contract, is valid as to its recognition and substantive provisions relating to employees in the industrial unit, excluding employees in these crafts. Further, I (Chairman Madden) am of the opinion that if, in the elections which we shall direct, a majority in any of the craft groups votes to be represented by the United, the Board should find the recog- nition provision of the contract to be valid and its substantive terms operative to the extent that it covers such group. If, on the other hand, a majority in any such craft group votes to be represented by the respective union other than the United, the contract, while valid in its recognition and substantive terms, as above indicated, as to the employees in the industrial unit, excluding such group, should not be found to be valid in those respects as to such craft group. As stated, the 1939 contract, with the United was made after the Board assumed jurisdiction of these proceedings. In view of the failure of the United to file a petition or request certification, and in view of its outstanding contract, we shall not direct that an election be held among the employees in the industrial unit covering both the Elizabeth and Chicago plants, excluding the employees at Elizabeth in the three craft groups. Although the evidence introduced by the craft unions showed sub- stantial adherence among the employees in the unit each claimed to represent exclusively, such evidence was admitted only with respect to the appropriateness of the unit claimed by it. Accordingly, we feel that elections by secret ballot are necessary to resolve the ques- tions concerning representation of these employees, and the matter of the appropriate unit or units. We are of the opinion that in determining eligibility to vote in this election, the current pay roll of the Company is most suitable and will best serve to effectuate the policies of the Act. We 'shall, there- fore, direct ttiat the employees of the Company eligible to vote in WILSON-JONES COMPANY 955 the elections shall be employees in the craft groups, above mentioned, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Elections herein, including employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation and employees who were then or have since been tem- porarily laid off, but excluding employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSION OF LAW Questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the represen- tation of employees of Wilson-Jones Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, ,of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Wilson-Jones Company a separate election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction of Elections under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regu- lations among employees of the Company in each of the following groups, respectively : (1) Among the tool and die makers, machinists, maintenance ma- chinists, machinists' helpers, and apprentices employed by the Wil- son-Jones Company, at its Elizabeth plant during the pay-roll period next preceding the issuance of this Direction, including employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation and employees who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding die setters and those em- ployees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by International Association of Machinists, Lodge 315, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or by United Loose Leaf and Blank Book Workers, Local Industrial Union, No. 148, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial 956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither; (2) Among the typesetters employed by said Company at said plant during the pay-roll period next preceding the issuance of this Direction, including the foreman of the printing department, em- ployees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they -were ill or on vacation, and employees who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Elizabeth Typographical Union, No. 150, affili- ated with the American Federation of Labor, or by United Loose Leaf and Blank Book Workers, Local Industrial Union, No. 148, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither; and (3) Among the printing pressmen, assistants, paper cutters, and stock handlers employed by said Company at said plant during the pay-roll period next preceding the issuance of this Direction, including employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation and employees who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or by United Loose Leaf and Blank Book Workers, Local Industrial Union, No. 148, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. ORDER By virtue of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certi- fication of representatives filed by Employees Benevolent Association of Elizabeth, N. J., Inc. be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, specially concurring : I am of the opinion that the two-plant industrial unit could be appropriate, and that a single plant unit confined to the employees at the Elizabeth plant is inappropriate. The facts set forth in the opinion of the Board show that the I. A. M. has had a history of organization and collective bargain- ing among the plant tool and die makers, machinists, .maintenance machinists, helpers, and apprentices, at the Elizabeth plant, suf- WILSON"-JONES COMPANY 957 ficient to warrant, if that is their choice, setting them apart from the above industrial unit. For this reason I agree that the unit in which the employees claimed by the I. A. M. are to be included shall be determined by an election to be held among them.1° For reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in Matter of Allis- Chalmers Manufacturing Company - and in Matter of Chicago Malleable Castings Company'12 I believe there is no justification for weakening the bargaining strength of the employees as a whole by permitting the craft groups which the Typographical Union and the Pressmen's Union claim to represent to split off from the above industrial unit. These unions had no membership among the em- ployees of the Elizabeth plant, nor had they notified the Company that they desired to represent any of these employees prior to the making of the 1938 contract between the Company and the United. Moreover, they have never bargained with the Company on behalf of any Elizabeth employees. Clearly they have established no sub- stantial history of collective bargaining. However, since the Chair- man and Mr. Leiserson differ with me with respect to these two craft groups and are of the opinion that elections in accordance with the doctrine of the Globe 13 case should be held among them, I concur with the view of the Chairman as to the character and effect of such elections. MR. WILLIAM Al. LEISERSON, concurring in part and dissenting in part : I am of the opinion that there are disputes here as to representa- tion of employees at the Elizabeth plant of the Company in which the Chicago employees are not involved. I cannot agree with the finding in the majority opinion that the United represented a ma- jority of the employees in both plants at the time the 1938 contract with the United was signed, because the record shows clearly that the United did not have authorizations from a majority of the Elizabeth employees. The contracts with the United also purport to include the tool and die makers and maintenance machinists at the Chicago plant within their scope, when in fact the Board found and certified on May 29, 1939, that the I. A. Al. was the duly desig- nated representative of these employees and that they constituted 10 Cf. Matter of Magnolia Petroleum Company and Oil Workers International Union, Local No 243, et al , 18 N. L R B 380, and cases there cited "Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 248, 4 N. L R B. 159, 175 L Matter of Chicago Malleable Castings Company and International Union of Opc ating Enganeeis . Local No 399 and International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local No 7, 16 N L R B 15 13 Matter of Globe Machine and Stamping Co . and Metal Polishers Union, Local No 3, S N L R B 294, and subsequent cases 958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an appropriate bargaining unit separate from the rest of the Chicago employees 14 In view of this finding and certification, it is clear that the tool and die makers and maintenance machinists at Elizabeth are similarly entitled to vote as to whether they desire representation by the I. A. M. in a separate unit. Since the United was not authorized by a majority of the Elizabeth employees to represent all of them, the typesetters and printing pressmen, as well as the machinists, are entitled to vote whether they desire representation in separate units or whether they want to be included and represented in the larger plant unit. 1112 N. L. R. B. 1351.