Leo Hart Co., Inc.

In the Matter of LEO HART CO., INC.' and ALLIED PRINTING TRADES UNION Case No. R-1980.-Decided August 5, 1940 Jurisdiction : printing industry. Practice and Procedure : petition for investigation and certification of representa- tives dismissed in absence of question concerning representation. Mr. Harry F. Harris, of Rochester, N. Y., for the Company. Mr. Anthony de Andrade, of Boston, Mass., for Allied. Mr. Isaac L. S. Smink, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Book Binders. Mr. Julius Loos, for the Typographical Union. Mr. George Hoffenberg, of Rochester, N. Y., for the Association. Mr. D. M. Byrd, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 21, 1940, Allied Printing Trades Union, herein called Allied, filed with the Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New York) a petition, and on April 6, 1940, Typographical Union No. 15, Pressmen's Union No. 38, and Bookbinders Union No. 80 filed an amended petition. Both of these petitions alleged that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of Leo Hart Co., Inc., Rochester, New York, herein called the - Company, and requested an investigation and certification of repre- sentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On June 14, 1940, 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 and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered the Regional Director to conduct an investigation and to provide for an appropriate hearing. On June 18, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing which was duly served on the Allied, on Typographical Union No. 15, I Erroneously designated as Leo Hart Company in the notice of hearing and other formal papers. 26 N. L. R. B., No. 12. 125 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on Pressmen's Union No. 38, on Bookbinders Union No. 80, herein collectively called the petitioners; on the Company, and on the Roches- ter Printing Crafts Association, herein called the Association, a labor organization claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on June 27, 1940, at Rochester, New York, before Peter Crotty, the Trial Exam- iner duly designated by the Board. The Company, the petitioners, and the Association were represented and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and 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 July 1, 1940, the petitioners requested oral argument before the Board. Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board on July 16, 1940, in Washington, D. C. The petitioners were represented by counsel and participated in the oral argument. Pursuant to leave, the Association and the Company filed briefs which the Board has considered. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS' OF THE COMPANY - `Leo Hart Co., Inc. is a New York corporation, having its office and place of business in Rochester, New York. The Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of commercial printing: The 'raw materials used by the Company consist mainly of paper,' ink, 'and type bought from jobbers, substantially all of whom are located within the State of New York. The finished products manu- factured by the Company, consisting of catalogues,-booklets, posters, and direct mail pieces, shipped from the Rochester plant to customers in the States of Indiana and Massachusetts for the period beginning January 1, 1940, and ending May 31, 1940, amounted to more than $100;000. 'The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Typographical Union No. 15, affiliated with the International Typographical Union of North America, is a labor organization ad- mitting to membership all mechanical employees in the composing rooms of printing establishments in Rochester. LEO HART CO., INC. 127 Pressmen's Union No. 38, affiliated with International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, in turn affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization ad- mitting to membership printing pressmen and assistants in Rochester. Bookbinders Union No. 80, affiliated with International Broth-, erhood of Bookbinders, in turn affiliated with the American Feder- ation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees engaged in all branches of the bookbinding industry in, Rochester. Allied Printing Trades Council of Rochester, herein called the Coun- cil, is a labor organization having as its affiliates all printing trade unions in Rochester,2 including the three unions discussed above. The Council deals primarily with the use of the printing trades label in all matters of mutual benefit to its affiliated unions. Under the name of Allied Printing Trades Union, the Council has conducted negotiations for collective bargaining agreements, in behalf of its affiliated unions, with employers in the city of Rochester.' Rochester Printing Crafts Association is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership all persons who work at any branch of the printing trade in the city of Rochester, New York. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The company has entered into three preferential hiring, exclusive recognition contracts with the Association: the first, signed July 12, 1937, was effective from July 29, 1937, to December 15, 1938; the sec- ond ran from February 1, 1939, to March 15, 1940; the third was dated March 18, 1940, to run until March 1, 1941, and thereafter from year to year unless either party thereto by 30 days' notice prior to the expiration advised the other of a desire to change or terminate it. Negotiations for the third contract were conducted during January and February 1940 after due notice of termination had been given by the Association. In January 1940 the Allied began organizational activities among the Company's employees at the request of Typographical Union No. 15, Pressmen's Union No. 38, and Bookbinders Union No. 80. The testimony is uncontradicted that the company had no notice of the affiliation of any of its employees with the petitioners until March 21, 1940, three days after the March 18 contract was signed by the Company and the Association and after the petitionfor an investigation and certification was filed by the petitioners. On that day .the -'peti- 2 Enumerated during the hearing as Mailers Union No'86 , Bookbinders Union No. 80, Pressmen 's Union No. 38, Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union No. 22, Typographia No 5, and Typographical Union No. 15 3 At oral argument petitioners herein expressed a desire, in the event an election should be directed, to appear on the ballot as the Allied Printing Trades Union, In behalf of Typographical Union No. 15 , Press- men's Union No. 38, and Bookbinders Union No. 80 . - - I - - •. .- • I I 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tioners notified the company both by letter and in person of their claims to representation and informed the company that representa- tives of the petitioner would call on March 22 , 1940, to arrange for a conference relative to establishing a contract covering wages, hours, and conditions of employment . Julius Loos, secretary-treasurer of the Typographical Union, admitted that he knew of the negotiations between the Company and the Association for a new contract a few, days before March 1940. A check of the petitioners ' claims to representation made by the Regional Director and incorporated into the record showed the fol- lowing: 4 authorization cards-Typographical Union 2 authorization cards-Pressmen 's Union 2 authorization cards-Bookbinders Union 3 working cards-Typographical Union The 11 cards of any nature show the following dates: 2 authorization cards dated April 6, 1940 6 authorization cards undated 1 working card dated March 9, 1940 1 working card dated April 5, 1940 1 working card undated Of the eight signatures affixed to any cards, the Regional Director reported that all appeared to be authentic. The undisputed testimony by Josephine Murphy, assistant secre- tary and office manager of the Association, revealed the following claims of Association membership as of the respective dates of the company's pay rolls: March 13, 1940, 47 members out of a total of 63 employees; March 20, 1940, 42 members of a total of 53 employees; June 21, 1940 , 28 members of a total of 39. The Association and the Company take the view that there can be no question concerning representation during the life of the March 18, 1940, contract . The petitioners insist that the contract is no bar to a present determination of representatives. The March 18, 1940, contract granting exclusive recognition to the Association as collective bargaining representative was validly entered into before the petitioners made any claim to representation, at a time when the petitioners were aware of the pending Company- Association negotiations and three days prior to the filing of the peti- tion herein.' In addition, the claims of representation made by the petitioners do not create a substantial doubt concerning the Associa- tion's majority at the time the contract was consummated. 4 The fact that the petitioners filed an amended petition on April 6 , 1940, after they had made both oral and written claims of representation to the company is of no relevance to the question of dismissal here raised LEO HART CO., INC. 129 Where a contract of reasonable duration providing for exclusive recognition is made with a labor organization that is the statutory representative of the employees as to whom recognition is granted, the Board, in furtherance of the purposes of the Act to attain stabilized labor relations in industry through collective bargaining agreements, should not proceed, pending the contract, to an investigation and determination of representatives. For these reasons, the Board will dismiss the petition and amended petition for an investigation and certification of representatives.' 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 No question concerning representation of employees of Leo Hart Co., Inc., Rochester, New York, now exists within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby dismisses the peti- tion and amended petition for investigation and certification of representatives filed herein by Allied Printing Trades Union, Typo- graphical Union No. 15, Pressmen's Union No. 38, and Bookbinders Union No. 80. EDWIN S. SMITH, concurring: I concur in the result that no election should be held in this case. Assuming' that all the cards authorizing the petitioners to act as bargaining agent had been dated prior to the time the March 18, 1940, contract was consummated, there still would be a showing of only 11 adherents among the 53 employees of the company within an appro- priate units Moreover, of the 11 cards of any nature presented to the Regional Director, only 8 bore what appeared to be genuine signatures. I believe the showing of representation made by the petitioners is not sufficient to create doubt as to the Association's present majority support.' However, for the reasons stated in my separate opinions ' See Matter of The Hettrick Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Union of America , 25 N L R B 722, Matter of Lewis Bolt and Nut Company and United Electrical Radio Machine Workers of America, Local 1140 (C 1 0) 23 N. L R B 708, Matter of Bon Ton Curtain Company and American Federation of Labor, Federal Union, 20 N L R B 462, Matter of American Hair & Felt Company and Jute, Hair and Felt Workers Local #168 (United Furniture Workers of America, C I 0 ), 15 N L R B 572, Matter of The National Sugar Refining Company of New Jersey, L I City Refinery and Local 1476, Sugar Refinery Workers, International Longshoremen's Ass'n, 10 N L R B 1410 6 The petitioners expressed a preference for using the company's pay roll of March 20, 1940, showing 53 employees within the appropriate unit, to determine the eligibility to vote in case an election had been di- rected 7 Matter of The Heft rick Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Union ofAmerica, 25 N L R B 722. 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in earlier cases,8 I am of the opinion that the March 18, 1940, contract does' not constitute a bar to the determination of representatives in this case: Mr. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above DECISION AND ORDER. 9 Matter of The Hettrick Manufacturing Company and Text,le Workers Union of America, 25 N. L. R. B. 722; Matter of Utica Knitting Company and Teitite Workers Federal Labor Union #21500, A F of L , 23 N. L. R. B. 55; and cases cited therein.