Leo Hart Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 5, 1940

26 N.L.R.B. 125 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

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., IN C. 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.