Hamilton Photo Engraving Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 175 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

HAMILTON PHOTO ENGRAVING CO. 175
treaters, dock shift foremen, boilerhouse shift foremen, iso-octane shift fore-
men, stabilizer shift foremen, laboratory shift foremen, labor subforemen, assist-
ant instrument foremen, assistant electrical foremen, carpentry foremen,
painting foremen, assistant pipe fitter foremen, assistant clean-out foremen,
insulator foremen, assistant floor foremen, assistant loading rack foremen, head
dispatchers, assistant head dispatchers, motor laboratory foremen, boilermaker
foremen, and welder foremen, and excluding also all other supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action.
3. Oil Workers International Union, CIO, Local No. 367, was on January 27,
1939, and at all times since has been the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the above-described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on January 19, March 28, and April 11, 1950, and at all times
thereafter to bargain collectively with Oil Workers International Union, CIO,
Local No. 367, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the afore-
said unit, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By said acts Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, and have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume]
MARTIN DONIGIAN, HARRY DONIGIAN, AND JOUHAR DONIGIAN, TRADING
AS HAMILTON PHOTO ENGRAVING Co. and NEWARK PHOTO ENGRAVERS
UNION, LOCAL #28, AFFILIATED WITII INTERNATIONAL PHOTO EN-
GRAVERS UNION OF NORTII AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
?2-RC--1961. February 8, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held on April 24 and 25 and
May 1, 1950, before Jonas Silver, hearing officer. On October 4,
1950, the Board issued an order reopening the record and remanding
the proceeding to the Regional Director for further hearing. Ac-
cordingly, a further hearing was held on November 30, 1950, before
D. J. Sullivan, hearing officer. The hearing officers' rulings made
at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The business of the Employer :
92 NLRB No. 13.
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer, a partnership with its place of business in Paterson,
New Jersey, is engaged in the production of photoengraving plates.
During 1949, the Employer purchased materials and supplies valued
at approximately $50,000, of which about 50 percent was received
directly from sources outside the State of New Jersey. An unascer-
tained portion of the remaining purchases was received locally but
originated outside the State. During the same year, the Employer's
gross income was approximately $211,000, of which less than 1 percent
was derived from sales and deliveries made directly to customers
outside the State.
However, during 1949 the Employer made photoengraving plates
valued at approximately $28,600 for the Passaic Herald News, the
Paterson Evening News, the Paterson Morning Call, and the Bergen'
Evening Record, northern New Jersey daily newspapers subscribing
to national press services and having daily circulations ranging from
about 28,000 to 49,000. It also furnished photoengraving plates
valued at approximately $10,000 to 8 weekly newspapers in the State
of New Jersey, and similar plates worth about $53,000 to printing
firms, advertising agencies, and department stores. Also included
in the $53,000 figure is $21,500 worth of plates supplied to Mattia
Press, a printing firm which, as the record in the reopened hearing
shows, makes annual direct sales and shipments valued in excess of
$25,000 to customers located outside the State. During the same year,
approximately $3,500 worth of the plates supplied to advertising
agencies were ultimately used in connection with advertisements ap-
pearing in national magazines, such as "Billboard," "Field & Stream,"
"House Beautiful," "Popular Mechanics," and "Hardware Age."
The Employer asserts that because of the relatively small amount
of its sales to customers outside the State, it would not effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over its operations. We do
not agree. The Board has recently determined that it will exercise
jurisdiction over those enterprises that furnish goods or services to
certain other concerns over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction,
where such goods or services are worth at least $50,000 annually.,
Apart from any other jurisdictional facts shown in the record, it is
clear that during 1949 five of the Employer's customers-the four daily
newspapers and Mattia Press-were firms over whom the Board would
assert jurisdiction,2 who purchased from the Employer finished
products valued in excess of $50,000. Accordingly, we find that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and
' Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
2 See Press, Incorporated, 91 NLRB 1360 , and Stanislaus Implement and Hardware
Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618.
HAMILTON PHOTO ENGRAVING CO. 177
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over
its operations.'
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Employer and the Petitioner agree on a unit coextensive with
the photoengraving production department.4 They disagree, how-
ever, as to the inclusion of Martin Donigian, Harry Donigian, Vahram
Sanders, Peter Fleming, John Kawkiel, and Arthur Piranian, whom
the Employer would include, and the Petitioner would exclude.
The Donigians.-Martin Donigian and Harry Donigian, together
with their mother, are copartners owning the Employer's business.
As the Donigian brothers ?,re themselves the employers, we shall,
despite the fact they do production work, exclude them from the unit.
Vahram, Sanders.-Sanders, classified a working foreman, spends
about 85 percent of his working time performing the duties of a photo-
engraving finisher. As he is one of the most highly skilled workers
in the plant, he also instructs other employees in connection with
mechanical problems arising in their work. There is no evidence
Jiowiiig that he possesses or exercises any supervisory authority.
We find, contrary to the Petitioner's contention, that Sanders is not
a supervisor as defined in the Act and we shall therefore include him
in the unit.'
Peter Fleming and John Kawkiel.-These two employees are classi-
fied as apprentices, and perform production duties on a regular basis
at least 5 hours each day. They spend their remaining time running
errands and cleaning presses. As they do substantially the same work
as other production employees and other apprentices, we shall include
them in the unit.
Arthur Piranian.-Thus employee is classified as an apprentice in
the photoengraving department. The Petitioner's request for his
exclusion is based only on the fact that he is a cousin of the Donigian
'The Employer also contended at the reopened hearing and in its brief that, because
there had been fluctuations in the volume of its business with some customers in the period
tollowmg the representative year 1949, the Board should test jurisdiction against the most
recent available figures Although it asserted that one of its accounts had diminished, the
Employer Idinitted that the bulk of its operations had not changed appreciably. As no
claim was made that the character of the business had changed, we find no merit in this
contention N L R B v Tea;-O-Pan Flours Dulls Company, 122 F 2d 433 (C. A. 5), enfg.
26 NLRB 765 ; Barton Brass Works and Precision Machined Parts Company. 78 NLRB 431
The pioposed unit embiaces all the Employer's production employees
i Cfu ong Company, 86 NLRB 687
943732-51--13
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
brothers. We do not believe that this relationship is sufficient reason
for excluding him from the unit .6 We shall therefore include him .7
We find that all employees s employed in the photoengraving de-
partment of the Employer's Paterson, New Jersey, plant, excluding
all office employees, shipping employees, drivers, delivery clerks (in-
cluding errand boys), salesmen, guards, professional employees,
management officials,9 and all other supervisors, as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Clelland Bus Lines , Inc, 85 NLRB 300
7 The record does not disclose Piranian 's relationship to the third partner, the mother of
the Donigian brothers. If, as may be the fact, he is her nephew , he is excluded from the
unit. Rosedale Passenger Lines, 85 NLRB 527; The E. J Kelley Co, 90 NLRB No 239;
Peter Pan Bus Lines , 82 NLRB 830
8
Included within this category are Vahram Sanders, Peter Fleming , John Kawkiel, and
Arthur Piranian.
9 Including Martin Donigian and Harry Donigian.
LIBERTY MUSIC SHOPS, INC. and LOCAL UNION 1430, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER and
LOCAL 854, INTERNATIONAL BROT11ERIIOOD ov TEAbISTERS, AFL
INTERVENOR. Case No. P2-RC-2691. February 9, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Merton C. Bernstein,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel. [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in the retail sale and servicing of
radio and television sets and the sale of phonograph records. It
operates four retail stores and a warehouse in the State of New York.
During the fiscal year ending April 30, 1950, the Employer purchased
radios, television sets, records, and electronic appliances valued in
excess of $1,000,000, approximately 90 percent of which was shipped
to its place of business in New York from States of the'United States
other than the State of New York. During the same year, the Em-
ployer's sales were in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 15 percent
93 NLRB No 24