Chicago Printing Pressmens's Union No. 3, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 729 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

CHICAGO PRINTING PRESSMEN 'S UNION NO . 3, ETC . 729
with the company on the term of a contract we will not refuse or delay signing
a written contract because agreement has not been reached by some affiliated
union in some other bargaining unit.
The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at the Company 's Lima, Ohio,
refinery, including the laboratory employees and the storekeepers, but
excluding all office clerical , plant clerical, and professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.,
OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Chicago Printing Pressmen 's Union No. 3, and Franklin Union
No. 4, International Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union
..of North America, AFL-CIO and Moore Laminating, Inc.
Chicago Printing Pressmen 's Union No . 3, and Franklin Union
No. 4, International Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union
of North America, AFL-CIO and American Fit-All Book
Covers, Inc. Cases Nos. 13-CP 12 and 13-CP-14. June 00, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed on June 2,1960, by Moore Laminating, Inc.,
herein called Moore, and by American Fit-All Book Covers, Inc.,
herein called American, against Chicago Printing Pressmen's Union
No. 3, and Franklin Union No. 4, International Printing Pressmen &
Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Re-
spondents, the General .Counsel for the National Labor Relations
Board by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, issued a
consolidated complaint alleging that the Respondents had engaged in
and were.engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Copies of the charges, the complaint, and notice of hearing were duly
served upon the Respondents and the Charging Parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in
substance, that on or about May 3,1960, Respondents commenced pick-
eting the premises of Moore and American with the objective of forc-
ing or requiring Moore and American to recognize and bargain with
the Respondents as the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees of Moore and American, and also to force and require the em-
ployees of Moore and American to accept and select the Respondents
as their collective-bargaining representative. The complaint further
alleged that notwithstanding the fact that Respondents were not the
currently certified collective-bargaining representatives of the em-
137 NLRB No. 88.
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees involved, the picketing has continued without a petition
having been filed within a reasonable period of time from the com-
mencement of the picketing.
On July 6, 1960, the Respondents filed an answer admitting that :
(1) they had engaged in picketing the premises of Moore and Ameri-
can from May 3 until June 24, 1960, when, pursuant to an order of the
District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois, they were enjoined
from further picketing pending final disposition by the Board; (2)
an object of such picketing was to force or require Moore and Ameri-
can to bargain; and (3) they were not currently certified. However,
the Respondents denied that an object of the picketing was to force
or require the employees of Moore and American to accept or select
them as their collective-bargaining representative, and further denied
that such picketing had been conducted without a petition having been
filed within a reasonable period of time from the commencement of
the picketing. As to this last point, the Respondents affirmatively as-
serted that on May 3, 1960, the same date the picketing commenced,
two petitions for representation elections were filed,' and subsequently,
on May 12,1960, the Respondents requested, and the Regional Director
approved, the withdrawal of these petitions. Respondents further
asserted that on June 10, 1960, another petition for a representation
election was filed 2 and that said petition was still pending at the time
their answer was filed.
Thereafter, all parties entered into a stipulation, which provides
in pertinent part that the parties waive their rights to a hearing and
to the issuance of a Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report and Recom-
mended Order. In lieu thereof the parties stipulated that the entire
record of this proceeding shall consist of the charge, complaint,
answer, the stipulation of facts, and six exhibits attached thereto.' In
addition, the Respondents required that the Board provide for oral
argument .4
By an order issued August 22, 1960, the Board approved the afore-
said stipulation, made it a part of the record herein, and transferred
the matter to, and continued it before, the Board.
1 Cases Nos . 13-RC-7180 and 13-RC-7181. The petition in Case No . 13-RC-7180 was
filed on behalf of Chicago Paper Handlers ' Union No. 2 ( affiliated with the Respondents)
for a unit of all production and maintenance employees at American . The petition in
Case No 13-RC-7181 was filed on behalf of Respondents for the same unit at Moore.
2 Case No. 13-RC-7251, filed on behalf of Respondents for a production and mainte-
nance unit at Moore. In their answer, the Respondents inadvertently referred to the
pending petition as Case No . 13-RC-7250 This petition was filed simultaneously with
Case No. 13-RC-7251 but was later dismissed by the Regional Director because it was
not supported by a sufficient showing of interest
8The six exhibits were made up of the two petitions ( supra, footnote 1), the with-
drawal requests , and the two later filed petitions ( supra, footnote 2).
• The Respondents ' request for oral argument is hereby denied as , in our opinion, the
record adequately presents the issues raised by the Parties' stipulation
CHICAGO PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 3, ETC. 731
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation, and the entire record
in this proceeding, including the brief filed by the General Counsel)-'
the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
Moore is, and at all times material herein has been, a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, having its office
and plant at Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the business of
plastically laminating items for the graphic arts. During the past 12
months, Moore has shipped from its plant finished products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Illinois.
American is, and at all times material herein has been, a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, having its office
and plant at Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the business of
printing protective covers for books. During the past 12 months,
American has shipped from its plant finished products valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Illinois.
We find, therefore, that at all times material herein, Moore and
American have been engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondents are, and at all times material herein have been, labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE FACTS
On April 29,1960, the Respondents requested Moore and American
to recognize them as the collective-bargaining representative for
Moore's and American's employees. On or about May 2, 1960, this
request was denied. On May 3, 1960, the Respondents commenced
picketing the joint premises of Moore and American, and continued
such picketing for a total period of 52 days until, on June 24, 1960,
the picketing was enjoined. With the commencement of the picketing,
the Respondents filed two representation petitions (supra, footnote 1)
but these were withdrawn 9 days later on May 12 1960; why they were
withdrawn is not reflected in the record.
On June 2,1960, Moore and American filed the instant charges alleg-
ing that the Respondents, by their continued picketing, were violating
Section 8 (b) (7) of the Act. On June 10, 1960, 8 days after the afore-
mentioned charges were filed and 38 days after the commencement of
5 Although the parties requested additional time within which to file briefs, and although
this request was twice granted, the General Counsel is the only party who filed a brief
with the Board
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the picketing, the Respondents again filed two representation petitions
(supra, footnote 2), one of which sought a unit at Moore and the other
a unit at American. The Regional Director dismissed the petition
with respect to American because it was not supported by 30 percent
or more of the employees in the unit. The petition with respect to
Moore was processed in accordance with customary Section 9 (c) pro-
cedures : On December 16, 1960, an election was held upon the parties'
stipulation for certification; the Respondents received less than a
majority of the votes cast.
As indicated, the picketing, in the meantime, had been terminated
pursuant to an injunction issued on June 24, 1960, by the District
Court for the Eastern District of Illinois. On the same date, the
Regional Director issued the consolidated complaint herein.
Discussion
As previously noted, Respondents did not file briefs in this matter.
However, in their answer, and by signing the stipulation, the Re-
spondents admit that an object of the picketing was to compel Moore
and American to recognize and bargain with them as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees involved. Nevertheless,
Respondents deny the allegation in the complaint that no valid peti-
tion has been filed within a reasonable period of time since the com-
mencement of the picketing. Apparently, it is the Respondents' con-
tention that as long as "a" petition is filed before the expiration of a
reasonable period of time after the beginning of picketing, whether
or not such petition is withdrawn or dismissed,6 such petition is timely
filed for purposes of Section 8 (b) (7) (C). We find no merit in this
contention.
The portion of Section 8 (b) (7) relevant to the issue presented
herein is subparagraph (C), which provides:
(C) where such picketing has been conducted without a peti-
tion under section 9(c) being filed within a reasonable period of
time not to exceed thirty days from the commencement of such
picketing : Provided, That when such a petition has been filed the
Board shall forthwith, without regard to the provisions of sec-
tion 9(c) (1) or the absence of a showing of a substantial inter-
est . . . direct an election in such unit as the Board finds to be
appropriate . . . [Emphasis supplied.]
By these provisions, Congress sought to settle, wherever possible,
by means of expedited elections, problems resulting from recognition
6 It is not clear whether Respondents are relying only on the petitions filed on May 3,
1960, or are also relying on the petitions filed on June 10, 1960. As the latter petitions,
one of which was dismissed by the Regional Director , were filed more than 30 days after
the commencement of the picketing , they cannot in any event serve as a defense to the
complaint herein. Consequently , we do not pass on the effect if any to be given to a
timely petition which is subsequently dismissed by the Regional Director.
CHICAGO PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 3, ETC. 733
and organizational picketing. Thus, Congress contemplated that
picketing may continue for a reasonable period of time, but for not
more than 30 days from the commencement of such picketing, where
no "petition under Section 9 (c) has been filed." 7 However, where a
petition has been filed within a "reasonable period," Congress has im-
posed upon the Board the requirement that it direct an election "forth-
with" in such unit as the Board finds to be appropriate. Obviously,
the Board can neither find the appropriate unit nor direct an election
unless there is a petition pending as to which these procedures relate;,
and a petition which has been withdrawn is not such a pending peti-
tion. Accordingly, in the circumstances here, we hold that by with=
drawing the petitions on May 12,1960, the Respondents also withdrew
the protection which the first proviso to Section 8(b) (7) (C) would
have afforded to the picketing, for by such withdrawals the Respond-
ents created a situation in which the Board could not direct an election
"forthwith" as contemplated by the proviso.
This conclusion, that the proviso contemplates a pending petition,
is reflected in Sections 102.73 through 102.82 of the Rules and Regu-
lations, Series 8, as amended, and Sections 101.22 through 101.25 of
the Statements of Procedure which the Board adopted in order to
implement the foregoing statutory scheme. For under such provi-
sions, insofar as they are pertinent here, it is only a petition which
leads to an expedited election which warrants dismissal of an other-
wise meritorious charge allegating a violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C).
On the other hand, where an election has not been directed and the
petition has been "withdrawn, the investigation of the charge is re-
sumed" 8 and, if found to be meritorious, becomes the basis for the
issuance of a complaint. Thus, under the Board's Rules, in conse-
quence of the Respondents' withdrawal of the petitions on May 12,
1960, the Regional Director was free to process the 8(b) (7) charges
filed June 2, 1960, and to conclude that issuance of a complaint was
warranted.
Under all the circumstances, therefore, we hold that the petitions
which the Respondents filed on May 3 and withdrew on May 12, 1960,
are deemed to be a nullity for purposes of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the
Act. Such being the case, we find that the Respondents, having pick-
eted the premises of Moore and American from May 3, 1960, for more
than 30 days, for an admittedly proscribed object, have violated Sec-
tion 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire
record, makes the following :
4 vol. II, Legis. Hiet . of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959,
p 1858 ( 3). See also , pp. 1720 ( 3) and 1722(1-2).
8 Statements of Procedure, Series 8, Section 101.24 ( b) ; Rules and Regulations , Series 8,
Section 102.81(b)
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Moore and American are employers within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2) of the Act and are engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondents, Chicago Printing Pressmen's Union No. 3, and
Franklin Union No. 4, International Printing Pressmen & Assistants
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By picketing the joint premises of Moore and American without
a petition under Section 9(c) being effectively filed within a reason-
able period of time, Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices
.within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (7) (C) of the Act.
4. The activities of the Respondents, as set forth above, having
been found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in connec-
tion with the operation of the Companies involved herein, have a
close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Chicago Print-
ing Pressmen's Union No. 3, and Franklin Union No. 4, International
Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be picketed, Moore
Laminating, Inc., and American Fit-All Book Covers, Inc., Chicago,
Illinois, where an object thereof is forcing or requiring the aforesaid
Companies to recognize or bargain with the Respondents as the rep-
resentatives of their employees, in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in the Respondents' respective business offices and meeting
halls, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 9 Cop-
ies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by official rep-
resentatives of the respective Respondents, be posted by the Re-
spondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
0In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
CHICAGO PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 3, ETC. 735
ing all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region signed
copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Moore Laminating,
Inc., and American Fit-All Book Covers, Inc., if they be willing, in
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents, as indicated,
be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER BROWN took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF CHICAGO PRINTING PRESSMEN 'S UNION
No. 3, AND FRANKLIN UNION No. 4, INTERNATIONAL PRINTING
PRESSMEN & ASSISTANTS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF MOORS LAMINATING, INC., AND
AMERICAN FIT-ALL BooK COVERS, INC.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT picket, or cause to be picketed, Moore Laminating,
Inc., and American Fit-All Book Covers, Inc., Chicago, Illinois,
where an object thereof is to force or require the aforesaid Com-
panies to recognize or bargain with us as the representatives of
their employees, in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.
CHICAGO PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION No. 3,
AND FRANKLIN UNION No. 4, INTERNATIONAL
PRINTING PRESSMEN & ASSISTANTS UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago 3, Illinois, Telephone Number,
Central 6-9660 , if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.