Belleville Employing Printers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 350 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative, and in the face of the Employer's refusal to sign
an agreement with it, the Petitioner filed the instant petition on
September 12, 1958, before the expiration of the certification year.
The Employer contends that the petition was filed untimely under
the Centr-O-Cast rule,2 and should be dismissed. The Petitioner con-
tends, in effect, that the voluntary withdrawal of the certified repre-
sentative from the contract negotiations constitutes a special circum-
stance justifying an exception to the Centr-O-Cast rule.
There is nothing in the record which reveals why the certified
representative is unwilling to represent the employees or to sign an
agreement with the Employer. Moreover, the private arrangement
of the two Unions in switching the employees from one to the other,
indicates a lack of regard for the establishment of a stable bargain-
ing relationship which the Centr-O-Cast rule is designed to en-
courage. We do not believe that the circumstances present here
justify any exception to our well established rule that a petition
filed during the first year of a certification must be dismissed.3
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
9 Centr-O-Cast & Engineering Company, 100 NLRB 1507, holding that a Board certifica-
tion will be treated as identifying the statutory bargaining representative with certainty
and finality for a period of 1 year, and that, in order to protect the bargaining relation-
ship from disturbance during that period , the Board will dismiss petitions filed before
the end of the year.
3 Riverside Manufacturing Company, 119 NLRB 328; Rockwell Valves, Inc., 115 NLRB
236; Westinghouse Elect, ie Corporation , 114 NLRB 1515. .Cf....WTOP, Inc., 114 NI.RB
1236 and Remington Rand, Inc., 112 NLRB 1381.
Belleville Employing Printers' and Belleville Printing Press-
men, Union No. 113 affiliated with International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC-3424. December 8, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Walter A. Werner,
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 Belleville Advocate Printing Co. and Belleville News-
Democrat, Inc., two of the Employers named in the petition, are in
l Consisting of Belleville Advocate Printing Co.; Belleville , News -Democrat, Inc.;
Joseph N. Buechler , d/b/a Buechler Printing Co. ; Raymond L. Erwin, d /b/a Erwin Print-
ing Co.; -Bruce Meyer ,' d/b/a Bruce Meyer Printing ' Co. ; and Arthur and Norman
Semmelroth, d/b/a Record Printing and Advertising Co. There is no formal organization
known as Belleville Employing Printers.
122 NLRB No. 58. . .
BELLEVILLE EMPLOYING PRINTERS 351
the newspaper publishing business, and individually do a gross
annual volume of business in excess of $250,000, but less than $500,-
000. The other Employers named in the petition 2 are engaged in
commercial printing, and do not individually have sufficient inflow
or outflow to satisfy the Board's jurisdictional standards.
The Petitioner seeks a multiemployer unit. The Employer and the
Intervenor contend there is no history of multiemployer bargaining,
and that as the Employers do not individually meet the Board's
jurisdictional standards, the petition should be dismissed.
Ever since the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act in
1935 the Board has consistently held to the position that it better
effectuates the policies of the Act and promotes the prompt handling
of cases not to exercise its jurisdiction to the fullest possible extent
under the authority delegated to it by Congress. For the first 15 years
the Board exercised its discretion in this area on a case-by-case basis.
In 1950 the Board first adopted certain jurisdictional standards de-
signed to aid it in determining where to draw the dividing line be-
tween exercised and unexercised jurisdiction. In 1954 the Board re-
examined its jurisdictional policies in the light of its experience
under the 1950 standards and revised its jurisdictional standards. At
that time the Board noted that "further circumstances may again re-
quire future alterations of our determinations one way or another." s,
Consistent with this practice of periodic review of its jurisdictional
policies and as a direct consequence of the Supreme Court's decision
in Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board 4 denying to the States au-
thority to assert jurisdiction over enterprises as to which the- Board
declines to exercise its statutory jurisdiction, the Board reexamined
its existing jurisdiction policies and the standards through which
such policies were implemented. As a result, the Board determined to
revise its jurisdictional policies at this time so that more individuals,
labor organizations and employers may invoke the rights and pro-
tections afforded by the Statute. In Sievions Mailing Service,5 the
Board fully set forth the general considerations which persuaded it
that this could best be accomplished by the utilization of revised juris-
dictional standards as an administrative aid in making its jurisdic-
tional determinations. The Board has chosen this case to set forth
the revised standard to be applied in all future and pending cases
involving newspaper companies.
The Board has determined that it will assert jurisdiction in all fu-
ture and pending cases involving newspaper companies which hold
a Ibid
? Edwin D. Wemyss, an, individnial, d/b/a Coca -Cola Bottling Company of Stockton,
110 NLRB 840, 842.
* 353 U.S. 1.
6122 NLRB 81.
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership in or subscribe to interstate news services, or publish
nationally syndicated features, or advertise nationally sold products,
if the gross volume of business, of the particular enterprise involved
amounts to'$200,000 or more per annum.s
In adopting this standard the Board has given due consideration
to all relevant budgetary factors bearing on its capability to handle
an increased caseload. By lowering the gross volume of business re
quired of newspaper companies to $200,000 the Board has endeavored
reasonably to ensure that its jurisdiction will be exercised over all
labor disputes involving newspaper companies which exert, or tend
to exert, a pronounced impact on commerce.
In view of the foregoing, we find no merit in the Intervenor's and
Employers' contention that the Board should not assert jurisdiction
in this case. The record demonstrates that the Employers have joined
together for the purpose of conducting collective-bargaining negotia-
tions.7 Accordingly, we find that they constitute a single employer for
jurisdictional purposes.8 In these circumstances the relevant criterion
in determining the Board's jurisdiction is the effect on commerce of
the combined operations of all of the Employers. As such combined
operations include the publishing of two daily newspapers, and as the
gross volume of business of the combined operations exceeds the
minimum $200,000 requirement established herein, we find that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over all of the
Employers in this case.
- 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.9
3. The Intervenor asserts a contract bar. At a meeting held on
June 3, 1958, the Intervenor and the Employers agreed on contracts
covering all composing room employees of the Employers. However,
these contracts were not signed until July 6 or 7, 1958. The instant
petition was filed , June 26, 1958. The Intervenor contends that its
contracts were put into effect immediately, on June 3, and that
therefore they bar the later-filed petition insofar as it seeks litho-
graphic production employees. The Board has held that "a contract
to constitute a bar must be signed by all the parties before a petition
is filed and that unless a contract signed by all the parties precedes
a petition, it will not bar a petition even though the parties consider
it properly concluded and put into effect. some or all of its pro-
8 This standard takes the place of the $ 500,000 standard set forth in The Daily Press,
Incorporated, 110 NLRB 573.
7 See paragraph 4, infra.
8 Siemens Mailing Service, supra.
e International Typographical Union, Local 74, AFL-CIO, intervened on the basis of
an alleged contractual interest for the limited purpose of contesting the appropriate unit.
BELLEVILLE EMPLOYING PRINTERS 353
visions." 10 As the Intervenor's contracts were not signed until after
the filing of the Petitioner's petition, we find they are no bar,11 and
that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within Section 9(c) (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.12
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent employees in a multiemployer
unit. Belleville Employing Printers, the alleged multiemployer asso-
ciation, has.no assets, officers, dues, or regular meetings. However,
all the Employers with the exception of Bruce Meyer Printing Com-
pany 13 have, as a group, negotiated contracts with the Petitioner
for over 20 years. The pattern of bargaining during this period has
been as follows : At the expiration of the contract term, the Peti-
tioner's "scale committee" sends individual but identical letters to
each Employer, stating its contract demands. Negotiations are con-
ducted between the scale committee, representing the Petitioner, and
a committee composed of all or most of the Employers. Separate con-
tracts are thereafter signed by each Employer. Although the Em-
ployers testified that they do not consider themselves bound until they
have executed their individual contract, uniform contracts as jointly
negotiated have always been signed by the Employers as a matter of
course. Under these circumstances, the Board has held that neither the
informality of the association 14 nor the absence of an advance agree-
ment to be bound by the negotiations 15 precludes the finding, which
we make here, that there has been an effective history of multiem-
ployer bargaining. Accordingly, we find the multiemployer unit to
be appropriate.",
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9(b)
of the Act :17 All letterpress, gravure, and newspaper pressmen, and
apprentices and helpers, at the Employers' Belleville, Illinois, plants,
10 Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160.
u In any event , the Intervenor 's contracts do not cover the 14 letterpress , gravure,
and newspaper pressmen sought by the Petitioner , as the Intervenor has stated it does
not represents or desire to represent these 14 employees . Likewise, for purposes of
contract bar, we find that the Intervenor 's contracts do not cover the lithographic pro-
duction employees sought, as no employees in these classifications are presently employed
by the Employers.
12 The Petitioner is currently recognized as bargaining representative but desires
certification under the Act. See General Box Company, 82 NLRB 678.
va Bruce Meyer Printing Co. has been in business for only 6 months , but has recently
joined the other Employers in joint bargaining with the Petitioner and the Intervenor.
"Fish Industry Committee, 98 NLRB 696 , 697-698; see also Electrical Contractors of
Troy and Vicinity, 116 NLRB 356, 358.
,5 Fish Industry Committee, supra; American Publishing Corporation, etc., 121 NLRB
115, footnote 23.
?e Ibid.
17 The unit , consisting essentially of letterpress journeymen and apprentices , constitutes
an appropriate craft unit. Sarasota Herald Tribune and Journal , 111 NLRB 654, 655.
505395-59-vol. 122-24
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR (RELATIONS BOARD
excluding all other employees, clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards and watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the
Act 18
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
28 The petition as amended describes a unit of all letterpress , gravure , newspaper press-
men, apprentices and helpers , and all offset or lithographic production employees, in-
cluding all offset or lithographic pressmen , apprentices and helpers , artists , pasteup men,
cameramen , platemakers, and strippers . The record indicates , however, that this unit
description refers to 14 employees, all of whom spend the great majority of their time
doing letterpress work. The Intervenor, while not seeking to represent any of these
14 employees, contends that the unit as described in the petition , insofar as it identifies
offset classifications, infringes upon its jurisdictional rights . The record indicates that
there are no employees of the Employers classified as offset or lithographic pressmen,
apprentices and helpers , artists, pasteup men , cameramen , platemakers , and strippers.
Accordingly, we do not include these classifications in the unit . In so describing the
unit, we are in no way to be construed as rendering a jurisdictional award regarding job
content or work assignments . See The Plumbing Oontraotor8 Aaaociation of Baltimore,
Maryland, Inc., 03 NLRB 1081, 1087.
E & BBrewing Company, Inc. and ' Drivers and Helpers Local
No. 38, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal,
Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO and
Thomas Pfeifle . Cases Nos. 7-CA-1669 and 7-CB-363. Decem-
ber 9, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 21, 1958, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued
his Intermediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondents
had not violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of Section 8(b) (2) and
(1) (A), as alleged in the complaints, and recommending that the
complaints be dismissed in their entirety, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the General
Counsel and the Respondent Company filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediiat eport, and, the .General Counsel also filed a brief and an
addendum. Pursuant to leave, the Respondent Union filed a reply
brief and an addendum.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings of the Trial Examiner but
not his conclusions or recommendations, as indicated below.
In. his ,Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner found,, and we
agree, that : The Company and the Union had an industrywide ex-
elusive hiring. hall contract, which the Union agreed to operate with-
out discrimination-against -nonmembers; the Company did not' follow
122 NLRB No. 50.