Ludlow Typograph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1009 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of LL"DLOw TYPoGRAPH COMPANY and FOREMEN'S
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA AND CHAPTER No. 126 FOREMAN'S
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Case No. 13-R-3083.-Decided March 21, 1946
Gann, Secord, Stead ct McIntosh, by Mr. Loy N. McIntosh, of
Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. W. Allen Nelson, of Detroit, Mich., and Mr. Hugh P. Davis,
of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Oscar Geltman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gpoli a petition duly filed by Foreman's Association of America
and Chapter No. 126 Foreman's Association of America, herein called
the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Ludlow Typograph
Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the Company, the National
Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice before Gustaf B. Erickson, Trial Examiner. The hearing
was held at Chicago, Illinois, on August 27 and 28, 1945. The Com-
pany and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The
Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi-
cial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded oppor-
tunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Ludlow Typograph Company, an Illinois corporation, is engaged
at a plant in Chicago, Illinois, in the manufacture of composing
66 N. L . R. B., No. 125.
1009
686572-46-65
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
room printing machinery and equipment. The Company's annual
purchases of raw materials, consisting chiefly of steel , brass, copper,
and grey iron castings, amount in value to more than $200,000, of
which approximately 75 percent represents shipments to it from
points outside the State of Illinois. The Company's annual sales
of finished products amount in value to more than $200,000, of which
approximately 90 percent represents shipments to points outside
the State.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Foreman's Association of America and Chapter No. 126 Foreman's
Association of America, unaffiliated, is a labor organization admitting
supervisory employees of the Company to membership.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its supervisory employees
on the ground that the unit proposed by the Union is inappropriate
for collective bargaining purposes.
The Company contends that the supervisory employees involved
in this proceeding are not employees within the meaning of the Act,
and that consequently the Board lacks jurisdiction of the subject
hatter. The status of foremen and comparable supervisors under
the Act has been considered in a number of Board 1 and court 2
decisions. Both the Board and the courts have concurred in holding
that foremen have a dual aspect under the definitions of "employer"
and "employee" contained in the Act .8 When he acts in the interest
of his employer, a foreman is an "employer"; but when he acts in
his own interest, as when he seeks to better the terms and conditions
of his employment, he is an "employee." There is no inconsistency
in recognizing such duality of status. Accordingly, we find that for
the purposes of this proceeding the supervisors herein considered are
employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
1 Matter of Soas Manufacturing Company, et at., 56 N. L. R. B. 348 ; Matter of Packa, d
Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, and 64 N. L. it. B. 1212; Matter of L. A. Young
Spring & Wire Corporation , 65 N. L. R. B. 298 ; Matter of The B. F. Goodrich Company,
65 N. L. it. B. 294; Matter of Simmons Company, 65 N. L. it. B. 984; Matter of
The Midland Steel Products Company, Parish & Bingham Division, 65 N. L . it. B. 997.
9N. L. R. B. v. Armour and Co ., 154 F. (2d) 570 (C. C. A. 10) ; Jones and Laugh-
lin Steel Corporation v. N L. R. B, 146 F. ( 2d) 833 (C. C. A. 5); N. L. R. B . v. Skin-
ner & Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F. ( 2d) 667 (C. C. A. 8).
8 See footnotes 1 and 2, supra
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY 1011
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (c,) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a unit of supervisory employees including the
Company's foremen, assistant foremen, foreladies, and assistant
foreladies , and excluding certain non-supervisory employees,' manage-
ment personnel," the superintendent, assistant superintendents, and
the supervising engineer. The Company objects to the composition
of the proposed unit, on the ground of the dissimilarity in the skills
and earnings of the included employees. In addition, it maintains
that, in any event, the unit is appropriate because these supervisory
employees are part of management.? It attempts to distinguish this
case from the Packard 8 case on the ground that the foremen here
involved have duties, powers and responsibilities greater than those
of the supervisors in that case. The Company has also set forth
various evils which it alleges will flow from the unionization of its
foremen.
The issues raised in this proceeding were considered in extenso in
the Young case .9 A majority of the Board there concluded, as we
do here, that foremen are employees within the meaning of Section 2
(3) of the Act; that, as employees, they are entitled to be placed in
some appropriate unit under Section 9 (b) ; that the type of industry
in which they are employed is immaterial; and that the nature of
the duties and responsibilities of foremen is relevant only insofar
as it bears on the question of proper grouping of the foremen for
collective bargaining purposes.
'The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 15 membership application
cards. There are approximately 16 employees in the appropriate unit
r ,Non-supervisory employees whom the Union would exclude are. type face design
department employees, porters , engineering department employees , general production
employees , general office employees , watchmen, and messenger boys. Most of these cate-
gories are named as agreed exclusions in an existing contract between the Company
and a union representing rank and file employees of the Company . The Company does
not oppose the exclusion of these employees . We shall exclude them from the unit here-
inafter found appropriate.
6 This term apparently refers to supervisory personnel above the grade of foreman.
7 The Company argues that these employees are included within the group of employees
barred by the Union 's constitution from membership in the Union , and points to a clause
in that constitution barring from such membership those "acting as negotiator in formu-
lating employer-policy." Inasmuch as this contention is not supported by evidence indi-
cating such activity on the part of the employees here involved , we find it unnecessary
to determine the validity of the contention.
s Matter of Packard Motor Car Company , supra.
9 Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, supra
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAIW
The Company's supervisory hierarchy in direct and full-time
charge of the Chicago plant consists of the following:
1 superintendent
2 assistant superintendents
1 supervising engineer"
13 foremen
1 assistant foreman
2 foreladies11
As appears above, the Union would include in the unit the fore-
men, the assistant foreman, and the foreladies. The foremen head
the Company's production departments. The assistant foreman and
the foreladies assist the foremen of certain departments and, ap-
parently, head subdivisions within those departments. The fore-
men, the assistant foreman, and the foreladies have substantially the
same duties and supervisory powers with respect to their subordinates.
Foremen, however, appear to have more responsibility than do the
assistant foremen or the foreladies. Although it appears, as con-
tended by the Company, that the skills and earnings of these
employees are dissimilar, it is clear that the assistant foreman and
the foreladies are on the same supervisory level, and that the foremen
are all on the next higher level of supervision. In view of the
similarity of their powers and duties, we conclude that the foremen,
the assistant foreman, and the foreladies comprise an appropriate
bargaining group.
The Union desires, and the Company does not oppose, the exclusion
from the unit of the superintendent, assistant superintendents, and
the supervising engineer. These have supervisory authority over
the employees whom the Union seeks to represent, and are on a higher
supervisory level. We shall exclude the superintendent. assistant
superintendents, and the supervising engineer.
The Company has made no contention that the Union is not inde-
pendent of any other labor organization representing the Company's
rank and file employees. As in previous cases involving the petitioner,
we find that the Union is an independent, unaffiliated labor organiza-
tion organized for the exclusive purpose of representing supervisory
employees.12
We find that the foremen, the assistant foreman, and the fore-
ladies at the Company's Chicago, Illinois plant, but excluding the
superintendent, assistant superintendents, the supervising engineer,
and all non-supervisory employees,13 constitute a unit appropriate
10 The supervising engineer is also an assistant to the superintendent
u Although they are called foreladies, these employees apparently are assistants to the
foreman in the matrix general department.
'a Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, supra; Matter of Packard Motor
Car Company, supra.
13 This includes the employees noted in footnote 5
LIUI)LOW TYPOGHAPH COMPANY 1013
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. TILE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the
employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth
in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Ludlow Typo-
graph Company, Chicago, Illinois, all election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations.
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the
armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person
at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented by Foreman's Association of America and
Chapter No. 126 Foreman's Association of America, unaffiliated, for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of
Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, I am constrained to
dissent from the majority opinion in this case.