American Publishing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 115 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

AMERICAN PUBLISHING CORPORATION 115
American Publishing Corporation , Detroit Post Printing Com-
pany, Highland Parker Printers, Inc., Michigan Rotary Press,
Inc., Unique Press, and Wyandotte Printing Co. and Interna-
tional Mailers " Union, Petitioner
Accurate Mailing & Distributing Service, American Mailers and
Binders, Cherie Printing Co., Detroit Gravure Corporation,
Detroit Labor News, Gratiot -Herald , Inc., Jourdan Co., Inc.,
Michigan Advertising Distributing Co., Michigan Catholic Co.,
Reliable Mailing Service Co., and Safran Printing Co. and
International Mailers Union , Petitioner. Cases Nos. 7-RC-3336
and 7-RC-3337.1 July 23, 1908
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas,
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. These petitions seek multiemployer units comprised of mailers
employed by firms engaged primarily in job printing and mailing
for customers in (a) those shops using press equipment which oper-
ates on a rotary principle 3 (Case No. 7-RC-3336) ; and (b) those
shops which use flatbed or offset equipment4 (Case No. 7-RC-3337).
The Petitioner and the Employers contend that since the combined
1 These two cases were originally consolidated for purposes of hearing with The Evening
News Association, d/b/a Detroit News, et al , 7-RC-3335. The latter case was thereafter
severed by order of the hearing officer, and the Board 's Decision and Direction of Election
therein was issued on November 5, 1957 ( 119 NLRB 345).
2 International Typographical Union and Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 , International
Typographical Union, hereinafter referred to collectively as the Intervenors or Individually
as ITU and DMU-ITU, respectively , were permitted to Intervene over the objection of the
Petitioner ; and Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 , International Mailers Union, hereinafter
referred to as DMU-IMU , was permitted to intervene over the objection of the other
Intervenors . Since DMU-ITU had contracts with the Employers which expired shortly
after the conclusion of the hearing herein, it was entitled to intervene , notwithstanding
its failure to comply with Section ' 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act . The Evening News
Association, supra, and cases cited therein. The ITU, as the parent of the contracting
union , was also entitled to intervene , although It is likewise not in compliance with
Section 9 ( f), (g), and ( h) of the Act . The Evening News Association, supra. More-
over, we shall place DMU-ITU on the ballot in the elections directed herein , in view of
the Board 's recent decision in Concrete Joists & Products Co., 120 NLRB 1542, by
which Chairman Leedom and Member Bean , who dissented therein, consider themselves
bound However , should this Intervenor win the election , we shall merely certify the
arithmetical results.
DMU-IMU was named in the petitions as the Local which will represent the employees
in the event the Petitioner should win an election , and during the hearing the Petitioner
requested that in the event elections are directed the name of DMU-IMU appear on the
ballots Its interest is therefore apparent , its right to participate in this proceeding is
clear, and we shall place its name on the ballots rather than that of International
Mailers Union.
8 Hereinafter referred to as the rotary shops.
* Hereinafter referred to zs 'he conimeicial shops.
121 NLItB No. 21.
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations of each employer group meet the requirements set forth
in the Jonesboro case,' the Board should assert jurisdiction. ITU
and DMU-ITU, on the other hand, contend that the only appropriate
units are separate units for each Employer, and that, since some of
the Employers in each case admittedly do not meet the Board's current
jurisdictional standards, the instant petitions should be dismissed as
to most of the Employers on jurisdictional grounds.
Inasmuch as we hereinafter find that the multiemployer units
sought are appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining,' we find
no merit in the ITU's contention. Under these circumstances, the
relevant criterion in determining the Board's jurisdiction is the effect
upon interstate commerce of the combined operations of all of the
Employers in each unit.' Accordingly, as the rotary shop Employers
had a combined direct inflow of over $500,000, as well as combined
indirect outflow of over $100,000,8 during the year preceding the
hearing, and as the commercial shop Employers had a combined direct
outflow of over $50,000, for the same period, we find that the Em-
ployers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and
that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
'in these cases.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employers.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act."
4. The only dispute in each of these cases is as to the scope of the
unit. The Petitioner seeks 2 multiemployer units of mailers," one
consisting of the employees of the 6 rotary shops and the other con-
sisting of the employees of the 11 commercial shops. The Petitioner
contends that there has been a bargaining history on a multiemployer
basis which renders such unit appropriate. ITU and DMU-ITU
take the position that the recently expired contracts were negotiated
5 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481.
6 See paragraph 4, infra.
7 Moltinelli, Santoni d Freytes , S. en C., d/b/a Panaderia to Reguladora and Panaderia
la Francesa , et at , 118 NLRB 1010.
8 Whippany Motor Co., Inc., 115 NLRB 52.
v The status of DMU-ITU and of DMU-IMU as labor organizations was contested by
the Petitioner and by the ITU, respectively . The record reveals that both organizations
exist for the purpose of bargaining collectively on behalf of their members with employers
concerning wages, hours , and other conditions of employment . Accordingly, we find
that they are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. The Evening News
Association, supra.
10 These petitions were filed during the term of the contracts between DMU-ITU and
each of .the employer groups The Petitioner contended that a schism existed within the
ranks of DMU-ITU, whereas ITU and DMU-ITU argued that the contracts barred any
determination of representatives. Inasmuch as those contracts have now expired, we find
it unnecessary to pass upon these contentions See The Evening News Association, supra.
n In the alternative the Petitioner requested that, if the Board did not find the multi-
employer units appropriate , separate elections be directed in single -employer units.
AMERICAN PUBLISHING CORPORATION 117
on a single-employer basis. and that, therefore, only separate units
for each Employer are appropriate. The Employers did not state their
position during the hearing, but in a brief filed by counsel represent-
ing all of the rotary shop Employers and most of the commercial
shop Employers, those Employers support the Petitioner's position
that multiemployer units are appropriate.
DMU ITU has represented the mailers involved in these cases for
a number of years. Prior to 1947, a single contract was negotiated
and signed covering all mailers employed at both the rotary and the
commercial shops. From 1947 to 1956, negotiations were conducted
separately for the two types of shops, but all agreements were oral.
In April 1956, DMU-ITU secured 2 written contracts, one with the
rotary shop Employers who are involved in Case No. 7-RC-3336, and
the other with the 11 commercial shop Employers named in Case
No. 7-RC-3337.12 ,These contracts were effective from April 30, 1956,
to January 31,1958.
Five of the six rotary shops and 6 of the 11 commercial shops are
members of the Graphic Arts Association, which is a formal associa-
tion established for the overall purpose of taking any steps necessary
to better the status of the industry. This Association is an "umbrella
type" organization made up of several different groups, of which the
rotary group is one, but it has never organized a commercial group.
The Association conducts negotiations for other employer groups,
consisting of both members and nonmembers, with other unions. In
those instances, the Association has required written authorizations
from both members and nonmembers i3 and has been a signatory to
the contracts. However, the Association did not require written au-
thorizations with respect to the negotiations for the contracts covering
the mailers, assertedly because of the small number of employers in-
volved and the ease of communicating with them." The Association
was not a signatory to the contracts. In negotiating the mailer con-
tracts, the Association's manager attended all meetings and performed
the functions of secretary, all communications between DMU-ITU and
the Employers prior to the actual signing of the contracts going
through him,'5 but he apparently did not participate in the discussions.
v Each of these contracts consists of a single document executed by DMU-ITU and
all Employers in the respective group.
13 None of the nonmembers involved in the instant ease has been represented by the
Association in such negotiations with other unions and, therefore , none has ever exe-
cuted written authorizations in connection with the other negotiations.
14 In contrast with the small group involved herein, there may, be as many as 135 em-
ployers represented in negotiating one agreement covering a particular craft group.
Is Thus, Whaling , the Association 's manager, received a letter from DMII ITU advis-
ing that the old contract was about to expire and offering to meet "with you" to negotiate
an agreement . This letter contained no address but merely bore the salutation
"Gentlemen" and, at the bottom , a list of all the Employers . It was not known whether
each Employer also received this letter . All negotiating meetings were apparently
arranged by whaling, who notified the Employers of the scheduled dates , and after the
final meeting he forwarded to DMII ITU, on behalf of each group of Employers, the
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The 1956 negotiations with respect to the mailers followed the same
procedure as had been customary in the informal negotiations of prior
years. The rotary and commercial Employers met jointly with the
union at an initial meeting to discuss the economic provisions, such as
wages and overtime, relating to all the shops.' After the joint meet-
ing, the rotary group and the union met separately to reach agreement,
and the commercial Employers thereafter met with the union, adopted
the rotary shop agreement to the extent it was applicable to the com-
mercial shop operations, and negotiated concerning the minor matters
pertaining to their particular type of operations.
The Rotary Shops
Prior to the initial negotiations meeting, all the rotary Employers
met and elected as their chairman and spokesman Oscar Wagner, the
general manager of Highland Parker Printers." • At the same time,
these Employers discussed whatever proposals they were to present in
the negotiations. In addition, they held separate discussions during
the negotiations in order to iron out any differences among themselves
and present a unified position in the negotiations. Wagner testified
that in case of any disagreement, the view of the majority prevailed.17
During the negotiations, Wagner spoke for all of the participating
Employers, some of whom did not attend the meetings.
To sustain their contention that bargaining by the rotary group
was on a single-employer basis, the Intervenors rely on the facts that :
the negotiations were under the auspices of, but not with, the Associa-
tion; one of the Employers is not a member of the Association; any of
the Employers could probably withdraw at any time before executing
the agreement if the group took a position "which would be impossible
for him to live with" or could refuse to execute the final agreement if
it were "utterly unacceptable"; and aside from the negotiations,
Wagner met with DMU-ITU only as an individual employer and not
as the representative of the group.
On the facts set forth above, we agree that the Association was not
authorized to bargain on behalf of the Employer in negotiating the
1956 contract. This, however, does not preclude a finding that the
Employers acted as an informal group composed of the 5 members
proposed wage scale and agreement for the commercial shops, and for the rotary shops
as worked out at the prior meetings. Subsequently Whaling was notified by DMTJ-ITU's
president that the union's membership had accepted the proposed wage scales, and Whaling
informed all the Employers of that fact Later Whaling again wrote to all the Employ-
ers informing them that the DMU-ITU president "called today and stated he will be
calling upon you within the next few days to secure your signatures on the new contracts."
Thereafter, DMU-ITU's president visited each Employer individually and each executed
the contract applicable to his type of operation
1e Wagner is also chairman of the rotary section of the Association.
17 Unique Press, the sole nonmember of the Association, attended these meetings and
expressed its views on the problems under discussion.
AMERICAN PUBLISHING CORPORATION 119
and 1 nonmember of the Association.18 And the fact that negotiations
were by such an informal group rather than a formal association does
not preclude a finding that the informal group constitutes a single
employer for the purposes of collective bargaining.19 Nor is a finding
required that there is no multiemployer bargaining history because,
once negotiations were concluded and the final agreement drawn up,
each Employer executed the contract itself rather than delegate the
right to execute the agreement to a representative with power to bind
the group 20
The record herein clearly shows participation by the six rotary
shops in joint bargaining with DMU-ITU21 In addition to the fact
that the Employers presented a joint position in bargaining,22 the
contract was signed by all the participating Employers as a single
document .21 The contract, although describing the Employers as
"parties of the first part," thereafter refers to them collectively as
"party of the first part," "the Employer," or "the Office"; speaks of
"the agreement" of the parties and "either party',' to the contract;
The fact that such an informal group includes employers who are and who are not
members of an existing association is irrelevant to any determination of the appropriate-
ness of the unit. However , it may be noted that, even if the Employers had bargained as
an Association group, we have previously held that a multiemployer unit may be appro-
priate although composed of both members and nonmembers of an association where the
nonmember has, as here , either delegated its bargaining authority to the association or
has participated in the joint negotiations . See, e. g., Highway Transport Association of
Upstate New York, Inc., et al., 116 NLRB 1718 1720 , and Associated Shoe Industries of
Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc., et at., 81 NLRB 224; 229.
zs The Evening News Association, supra, and cases cited therein, footnote 9.
20 The Evening News Association, supra, and cases cited therein, footnote 10.
m Unlike the case of Miller Shingle Co ., 114 NLRB 1217 , which is cited by the Inter-
venors in their brief as being comparable to the instant case, the Employers herein never
announced any intention to bargain individually . Hence, the question to be determined
here is whether the Employers ' conduct indicates their intention to be bound by-multi-
employer bargaining rather than , as in the Miller case, whether they engaged in any
conduct inconsistent with a contrary announced intention.
23 Intervenors , in their brief , cite four cases in support of the proposition , stated there,
that "the mere fact that there was consultation among the employers or that they signed
the same contract is not indicative of true multiemployer bargaining." Without consid-
ering the validity of this proposition, we note that we base our decision in the instant
case on more than those "mere facts ." However , we are constrained to note that none
of the cases cited by the, Intervenor stands for the rule stated and none involves facts
at all analogous to those under consideration here. A • single example will suffice to show
that they are inapposite. Thus, in Berghuis Construction Company , 116 NLRB 1297,
where the intervenor opposed petitions for two single -employer units , the Board noted,
inter alla, that one of the employers involved had never adopted or signed the associa-
tion contract, on which the intervenor apparently relied to show a history of multi-
employer bargaining , and that the other employer involved had clearly indicated its
intention not to be bound by that contract.
m With respect to the probable right of any Employer to withdraw from the group any
time up to execution of the contract , no Employer did in fact withdraw . - Rather, as
indicated above, the Employers - compromised whatever disagreements may have arisen
among them , and the assumption that they could or would withdraw is based on mere
Speculation. Also, we have held that the fact that a committee negotiating with a union
had 'no authority to bind the employer and that the employer reserved the right to give
final approval to any ' agreement reached through negotiations is not controlling and does
not alone justify a finding that a single-employer unit is appropriate . Atlas Storage
Division, P & V Atlas Industrial Center, Inc., 100 NLRB 1443. And see United Produe=
tions of America, 111 NLRB 390.
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and provides that "if either party wishes to propose a change in any
of the conditions . . . it shall notify the other party . . . in writ-
ing...." The agreement provides, inter alia, uniform hours, wages,
working conditions, holidays, vacations, sick and accident insurance,
and general working rules and regulations for employees of all the
Employers. The provision for sick and accident insurance obviously
requires joint selection by all the Employers of a single insurance
company and the issuance of a single policy. Further, the contract
provides for a joint standing committee composed of two members
of the union and two representatives to be named by the Employers,
to which are to be referred for settlement all disputes arising out of
the operation of the agreement, regarding discharge cases, and con-
cerning the interpretation of any portion of the agreement 24 In
addition to the collective bargaining contract, the rotary Employers,
together with the commercial Employers, are party to a retirement
benefit plan covering employees of all those Employers, which plan
was negotiated jointly with DMU-ITU and three other printing
trades union.
On these facts, we reject the Intervenors' contention that bargaining
with the rotary Employers was on a single-employer basis '21 and find
that a single multiemployer unit-of the employees of the rotary Em-
ployers is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The Commercial Shops
The commercial shops appear to have acted together, but in a very
informal manner. Prior to the initial joint negotiating meeting the
commercial Employers informally designated as their chairman an
official of one of the nonmember Employers. The extent of the chair-
man's authority to speak for all the commercial Employers or for
those not present is not clear. At least some of the commercial Em-
ployers met with such chairman prior to the initial negotiation meet-
ing to discuss their approach to the coming negotiations. Also, about
5 or 10 minutes before the meeting between the commercial Employers
and DMU-ITU, the chairman met separately with the commercial
Employers who were present at that time. At no time did all com-
mercial Employers meet to discuss the contract or the problems grow-
ing out of it, and at least one Employer, Chene Printing Company,
never participated in any discussions with any of the other Employers
u The Intervenors' last contention, I. e., that after negotiations were concluded
Wagner met with the Union only as a representative of an individual Employer, is without
merit as a basis for finding that negotiations were not on a group basis, inasmuch as this
term of the contract provided a means of administering its provisions on a joint basis
so that there would seem to be no need for Wagner to act for the group.
25 Since the Intervenors are not contending that they desire to change the pattern of
bargaining which has obtained in the past, we need not consider the effect such a desire
would have upon the appropriateness of the unit herein.
AMERICAN PUBLISHING CORPORATION 121
and never attended any negotiating meetings. On the other hand, all
Employers were aware that the negotiations were in process, were
kept informed of the progress of the negotiations, and they, all signed
the contract without questioning its terms.
The discussion concerning the provisions of the rotary shop con-
tract is equally applicable to the terms of the commercial shops agree-
ment. In sum, the Employers are referred to collectively as a single
party, there are provided uniform working conditions and benefits,
and there is established a joint standing committee of 2 members of
the union and 2 representatives named by the Employers to determine
disputes between the contracting parties. In addition, it is noted
that the sick and accident insurance policy has been carried by the
commercial Employers in accordance with the contract requirement
and that all claims arising thereunder have been administered and
.handled by the Association.
Essential to any finding that a multiemployer unit is appropriate
are : (1) a controlling history of bargaining on a multiemployer basis
for a substantial period of time,26 and (2) an unequivocal manifesta-
tion by the individual employers of a desire to be bound in future
collective bargaining by group rather than individual action?' And,
as noted above, the facts that negotiations were by an informal group
rather than by a formal association and- that, once negotiations were
concluded and the final agreement drawn up, each Employer executed
the contract itself rather than delegate the right to execute the agree-
ment to a representative with power to bind the group does not require
the finding that there is no multiemployer bargaining history 2s
On the basis of the manner of their bargaining for the April 1956
contract, the terms of that contract, and the central administration of
its terms, we find that the commercial Employers have met the above
requirements 29 and have acted as an informal group 30 Thus, al-
though not every Employer participated in the negotiations to the
same extent and some failed to attend any of the meetings," there
was no history of individual bargaining prior thereto,32 the negotia-
tions resulted in a single contract 33 containing all the terms and
' Arden Farms, et al., 117 NLRB 318; Cleveland Builders Supply Co., et al., 90
NLRB 923.
21 Chvecago Metropolitan Hom@ Builders . Association, 119 NLRB 1184, and cases cited
therein.
21 See footnotes 19 and 20, supra.
" The Intervenors raised certain contentions which either specifically or apparently
related to both the rotary and the commercial shops. These have been disposed of supra.
See footnotes 18, 21, 22, and 23.,
80 As in the case of the rotary shops, we agree that the Association acted merely as sec-
retary and was not authorized to bargain for the commercial employers.
'1 See Electrical Contractors of Troy and Vicinity, 116 NLRB 354, 358
"Cf Miron Busldsng Products Co., Inc., et dl., 116 NLRB 1406; Rainbo Bread Co.,
92 NLRB 181.
83 Molinelli, Santoni & Freytes, S. en C., et al, 118 NLRB 1010.
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conditions covering the operations of all the Employers'34 all com-
munications were directed to, and handled by, the Association and
all Employers were notified that negotiations were in process and
were kept informed of the progress made, 35 and all the Employers
executed the agreement without modification 36 Further, questions
arising under the contract have been administered by the joint stand-
ing committee, the sick and accident insurance has been administered
by the Association, and the Employers are party to a centrally ad-
ministered welfare fund 31
We reach this conclusion despite the fact that, approximately 6
months after the effective date of the April 1956 contract, some of
the commercial Employers signed "supplemental agreements" with
DMU-IMU, which were identical to the April contract but sub-
stituted IMU for ITU throughout the agreement; and that admittedly
these were individual actions of those Employers. Unlike the Inter,
venors, we do not view these "supplemental agreements" as relating
back to evidence the Employers' intentions in April. Rather, we
consider those agreements, at most, to have been untimely attempts to
withdraw from the group bargaining. An employer may properly
withdraw from an existing multiemployer unit provided it clearly
evinces at an appropriate time its intention to pursue an individual
course of bargaining."' The attempts in the instant case, made after
the first 6 months of a 2-year contract, were clearly untimely.39 More-
over, the circumstances of this case also indicate that the Employers
did not unequivocally intend to abandon the historical course of group
bargaining.40
In view of the above, we reject the Intervenors' contention that
bargaining with the commercial Employers was on a single-employer
basis,41 and find that a single multiemployer unit of the employees of
the commercial Employers is appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining. However, since Safran Printing Company and
the Detroit Labor News no longer have employees in the categories
involved herein and do not anticipate resuming their mailing opera-
tions in the foreseeable future, we shall not include them in the unit.
84 The Eventing News Assn., supra ; Puerto Rico Steamship Association , 110 NLRB 418.
88 Cf Ra•nbo Bread Co , supra , at p 183
80 Electrical Contractors of Troy and Vicinity„ supra. •
87 Puerto Rico Steamship Association supra
89 York Transfer & Storage Cc , 107 NLRB 139, 142.
8" McAnary & Welter, Inc, 115 NLRB 1029; Engineerinq Metal Products Corporation,
92 NLRB 823 Cf Leland J. Paschich and George H. Cherry, d/b/a Economy Shade
Company , 91 NLRB 1552.
40 See , e. g. Enq'neering Metal Products Corporation , supra We note, among other
things, that 3 of the 5 signatories to the October 1950 "supplemental agreements" explic-
itly take the position in this proceeding that the multlemployer unit is appropriate, while
the remaining 2 do not assert the desire to bargain individually.
41 See footnote 25, supra
AMERICAN PUBLISHING CORPORATION 123
The parties agree as to the categories to be included in the units.
We find, substantially in accordance with such agreement," that the
following employees constitute units appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(1) All employees doing work appertaining to mailing, such as
addressing, tagging, stamping, labeling, bundling, or wrapping;
cutting lists or wrappers (including galley work) ; operating stencil
machines, filing or correcting stencils; sorting, routing, dissecting, or
marking wrappers; taking bundles or papers from conveyors or
escalators; stacking, jogging, folding; handling of bundles or mail
sacks; distributing, counting of papers (leaving or returning) ; tying
by hand or power machine ; sacking, delivering papers to mailers,
carriers, agents, or newsboys; inserting or dispatching of papers,
envelopes, magazines, or circulars; whether done by hand or power
machines, including auxiliary machines used in preparatory work for
making plates, stencils, or any devices that may be used in placing
names and addresses on wrappers, or papers now in use or in the
future may be introduced, and jogging of papers or wrappers to be
used on any automatic mailing machine, employed by the rotary
shops, i. e., American Publishing Corporation; Detroit Post Printing
Company; Highland Parker Printers, Inc.; Michigan Rotary Press,
Inc.; Unique Press; and Wyandotte Printing. Co. at their plants in
Detroit, Michigan, excluding all other employees, office and clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and other
employees covered by contracts involving work other than specified
above.
(2) All employees doing work appertaining to mailing, such as
addressing, tagging, stamping, labeling, bundling, or wrapping; cut-
ting lists or wrappers (including galley work) ; operating stencil
machines, filing or correcting stencils; sorting, routing, dissecting, or
marking wrappers; taking bundles or papers from conveyors or esca-
lators; stacking, jogging, folding; handling of bundles or mail sacks;
distributing, counting of papers (leaving or returning) ; tying by
hand or power machine; sacking, delivering papers to mailers, car-
riers, agents or newsboys; inserting or dispatching of papers,
envelopes, magazines, or circulars; whether done by hand or power
machines, including auxiliary machines used in preparatory work for
making plates, stencils, or any devices that may be used in placing
names and addresses on wrappers, or papers now in use or in the
future may be introduced, and jogging of papers or wrappers to be
used on any automatic mailing machine, employed by the commercial
shops, i. e., Accurate Mailing & Distributing Service; American
Mailers and Binders; Chene Printing Co.; Detroit Gravure Corpora-
tion ; Gratiot-Herald, Inc. ; Jourdan Co., Inc. ; Michigan Advertising
42 The units conform to those contained in the 1956 contracts
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Distributing Co.; Michigan Catholic Co.; and Reliable Mailing
Service Co. at their plants in Detroit, Michigan, excluding all other
employees, office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the 'Act, and other employees covered by contracts involv-
ing work other than specified above.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc. and Milk
Drivers and Dairy Employees Union , Local 584 , IBT, Ind.,
Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-9305. July 23, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election 1 an elec-
tion by secret ballot was conducted herein by United States mail,
commencing on May 9, 1958, and terminating on May 16, 1958, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second
Region of the National Labor Relations Board among the employees
in the unit found appropriate. The ballots were tallied on May 19,
1958, and an official tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The
tally showed that 4 valid ballots were cast of which 3 were cast for
the Petitioner and 1 was cast for the Local 56, International Brother-
hood of Firemen, Oilers and Maintenance Mechanics, AFL-CIO, the
Intervenor. There were no challenged or void ballots. On May 26,
1958, the Intervenor filed timely objections to the election and conduct
affecting the results of the election, alleging that: (1) One of the
voters did not himself cast his ballot; and (2) the ballots were counted
with no representative of the Intervenor present because it had not
been notified of the time and place of the counting of the ballot. In
accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the objections and on June
10, 1958, issued and served upon the parties his report on objections
in which he recommended that the objections be overruled. On June
18, 1958, the Intervenor filed timely exceptions to the Regional Direc-
tor's report on objections.
Pursuant to the provisions of 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
As no exception was filed with respect to the Regional Director's
recommendations as to objection 1 we hereby adopt the Regional
Director's recommendation and overrule the objection.
Unpublished.
121 NLRB No. 28.