Ludlow Typograph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1463 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY 1463
exists . It does not appear that the millwrights and sheet-
metal workers sought by the Carpenters and Sheet Metal Work-
ers respectively exercise the gamut of skills characteristic
of their crafts. Accordingly we shall dismiss the petition
of the Carpenters for a separate unit of millwrights and deny
the request by intervention of the Sheet Metal Workers for a
separate unit of sheet -metal workers.' However, should either
wish to appear on the ballot in the production and maintenance
unit found appropriate, it may do so upon application to the
Regional Director.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at its Bloomington , Illinois, plant, excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, laboratory em-
ployees, quality control employees, guards, and 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.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
i See Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, 108 NLRB 174; Collins Radio Company Western
-Division, 107 NLRB 1484.
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS,
CIO; Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL METAL ENGRAVERS
AND MARKING DEVICE WORKERS, LOCAL 1, AFL, 2
Petitioner . Cases Nos. 13-RC-3504, 13-RC-3655, and 13-RC-
3545. June 25, 1954
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held
before Raymond A. Jacobson, hearing officer. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.' On the request of the IUE-CIO
the Board heard oral argument at Washington, D. C., on March
30, 1954, in which all parties participated.
'Herein called the IUE-CIO.
2 Herein called the Engravers.
'The hearing officer referred to the Board the motions of the Employer and of International
Association of Machinists, AFL, herein called the IAM, to dismiss all petitions upon the ground
that an existing collective-bargaining contract is a bar, and to dismiss the petition in Case No.
13-RC- 3545 upon the further ground that the unit sought is inappropriate. For reasons stated
infra, the motion is granted as to Case No. 13-RC-3545 and denied as to Cases Nos. 13-RC-
3504 and 3655.
108 NLRB No. 209.
1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer and the IAM contend that an existing col-
lective-bargaining contract is a bar to this proceeding.
On October 9, 1952, following an election, the Board
certified the IAM as bargaining representative of the
Employer's production and maintenance employees. In
December 1952 the Employer and the IAM entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement effective from November 1,
1952, to November 1, 1953, subject to automatic renewal from
year to year thereafter, absent notice to terminate by either
party 60 days' prior to the contract's anniversary date. On
September 16, 1953, the Employer and the IAM signed a new
bargaining contract effective retroactively from August 17,
1953, to August 17, 1955. Except for an increase in wages,
minor changes in certain other provisions, and the new termi-
nation date, this contract was identical with the first contract.
On August 10, 1953, the IUE-CIO informed the Employer
that it represented a majority of the production and maintenance
employees, and on August 11 filed a representation petition
seeking to represent them. On August 26, the Engravers asked
the Employer for collective bargaining on behalf of employees
in the engraving department and followed this request with
the filing of a representation petition on August 27. Both
requests for recognition and bargaining were made and both
petitions were filed before the IAM and the Employer signed
the extension agreement.
If the 1953 agreement had not been signed during the
certification year, it would unquestionably not be a bar because
the rival claims were made and the rival petitions were filed
before its execution. However, in the Quaker Maid case, 4
the Board decided that it would hold as a bar any contract
signed within the certification year, even if it was the second
contract signed within that year and was executed with notice
of a timely claim of representation by a rival union. If we
were to continue to adhere to the Quaker Maid rule, we would
perforce hold the September 1953 contract a bar because it
was signed within the certification year, albeit only 3 weeks
before its termination.
The Board has reexamined the Quaker Maid rule and now
believes that it should no longer be followed. It must never
be forgotten that the Act is designed primarily to protect
the right of employees to self-organization and that the refusal
to conduct an election when a substantial number of employees
4The Quaker Maid Company, Incorporated , 71 NLRB 915.
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY 1465
have indicated a desire to change bargaining representatives
is a restraint on that right. Such a restraint for a reasonable
period of time, as after a certification, may be necessary
to achieve a measure of stability in labor relations, but it should
not extend beyond what is absolutely essential for the establish-
ment of sound labor relations. The original reason for the
1-year certification rule was to afford time to the certified
union and the employer for negotiating a collective-bargaining
agreement free of interference by rival claims of representa-
tion. 6 The rule itself was a pronouncement of the Board and
is nowhere required by the Act. In the Board's experience,
1 year is adequate time for the certified union and the employer
to reach agreement on terms and conditions of employment, if
they are ever to do so. But, if the parties are able to agree on
a collective-bargaining contract in less than the 1 year
allotted, there is no sound reason for saying that they shall
have the remainder of the year to make a second or third
contract free of interference by rival claims of representation.
The Quaker Maid rule thus unduly prolongs the protection
afforded an employer and an incumbent union by the certificate,
with consequent damage to the employees' freedom of choice.
By permitting the making of two contracts within a certification
year which are bars to an election, the Quaker Maid rule
permits the employer and the incumbent union in effect to
circumvent another Board rule against contracts of more than
2 years serving as a bar. For all the foregoing reasons, we
believe that a sounder rule and one more in keeping with the
purposes of the Act is to allow the contract to control the
filing of a new petition. The normal contract bar rules have
themselves been carefully formulated with a view to balancing
the interest of employees in freedom to select and change their
bargaining representative at will, as against the sometimes
conflicting public interest in achieving stability of bargaining
relationships. 6
As the Petitioners made their claims of representation and
filed their petitions before the signing of the 1953 contract,
we find that this contract is not a bar to a present determina-
tion of representatives.'
4. The appropriate unit:
The IUE-CIO seeks to represent a unit of production and
maintenance employees corresponding to the existing contract
unit. The Engravers wish to represent engraving department
employees in a separate unit. The Employer and the IAM
5 Inasmuch as a major objective of the Wagner Act is to bring about a contract binding
on both parties with some degree of permanence, we feel that a certification must be endowed
with a longevity sufficient to accomplish its essential purpose." N. L. R. B. v. Appalachian
Electric Power Co., 140 F. 2d 217, 221 (C. A. 4).
6The Trailer Company of America, 51 NLRB 1106, 1109.
'To the extent that our decision here is inconsistent with the principle of Centr-O-Cast &
Engineering Company, 100 NLRB 1507 (dismissal of representation petitions filed during the
certification year), that rule is hereby modified.
1466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
oppose the smaller unit , but agree to the appropriateness of
the larger .8
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of composing
machines and composing room equipment. For this equipment,
it manufactures brass and steel matrices engraved with letters
and symbols. This engraving work is done in the engraving
department , which the Engravers desires to set up as a separate
unit.
The letters and symbols engraved onthe matrices are repro-
ductions of patterns made by the design department . They are
transposed to the matrices by means of a pantograph machine
operated by the employees in the engraving department. The
pantograph machine has 4 to 8 arms which are manipulated to
produce different kinds of letters and symbols. Each character
and symbol requires a different machine setup. The setup
work is done by the foreman of the engraving department. The
foreman also makes the intricate arithmetical calculations
required for determining the manipulation of the arms. He
places his calculations on standard cards for the use of the
operators who sometimes are required to make additional
simple computations for further adjustment purposes. Once a
machine is set up , the operator can produce as many as 100
identical symbols in one continuous, repetitive process. The
operators do no hand work. When such is required, it is done by
the foreman.
The Employer has no apprenticeship program for employees
in the engraving department. Vacancies are filled by the trans -
fer of employees from other departments . Transferees are
assigned to the operation of the pantograph machine after a
short trial period . They receive no training in hand engraving
and reach the highest wage scale for pantograph machine
operators in approximately 13 weeks.
The pantograph operators involved in this case are engaged
"in the purely mechanical process of copying a master design
after it has been setup on the machine." 9 Their work is
repetitive and mechanical . They do not undergo apprentice-
ship training and reach the highest wage scale for the trade in
13 weeks . In these circumstances we find that they are not a
craft group or otherwise appropriate for severance from an
existing production and maintenance unit under the standards
established in the American Potash " case . Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the Engravers' petition.
We find that all production and factory maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant, including
pantograph production machine operators, but excluding tool-
makers, machinists , engineering employees , draftsmen, type-
face design department employees , professional employees,
8 However , the IUE-CIO is not opposed to the granting of a separate self-determination
election for engraving department employees.
9Rock Hill Printing and Finishing Co., 71 NLRB 1425, 1427.
10 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY 1467
office employees , messengers , guards, watchmen, foremen,
assistant foremen , foreladies , assistant foreladies, chief
shop timekeeper , management personnel , and all other super-
visors , 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.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Members Murdock and Peterson, dissenting:
The majority's decision in this case not to find the existing
contract a bar is, in our opinion, an unwise and an unwarranted
modification of a principle of Board law that has stood as a
bulwark against industrial unrest and contributed immeasurably
to industrial stability. That principle is that a Board certifica-
tion identifies the statutory bargaining agent, with certainty
and finality, free from challenge as to its majority status, for
a period of 1 year, absent unusual circumstances. As the Board
said In the Centr-O-Cast case,"
By thus substantially foreclosing any question of repre-
sentation and clearly defining the duty of the employer
during the 1-year certification period, the Board has
achieved the dual purpose of encouraging the execution
of a collective bargaining contract and enchanting the
stability of industrial relations.
To assure the effectuation of this dual purpose and in order
to accommodate this rule with the Board ' s contract-bar
doctrine , the Board , in the Quaker Maid case , ' established
the reasonable and fair rule that during the 1 -year period
following certification the premature extension doctrine did
not apply regardless of whether the original contract was
executed before or after the certification issued. By its
decision herein the majority not only reverses the Quaker
Maid rule but also disaffirms the 1 -year certification rule
by ignoring the very reasons for which it was adopted.
Heretofore a newly certified union was naturally more
inclined to agree to an initial contract term of less than 1 year
because it was assured that under the Centr -O-Cast and
Quaker Maid rules its status as the statutory bargaining
agent was protected from challenge during the entire 1-year
period following certification and the employer was therefore
obligated to bargain with it for a second contract after the
expiration of the first . However , under the rule established
by the majority in this case a certified union ' s majority
status may be challenged upon the expiration of the term of
n sup"'.
"Supra.
1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its initial contract with the employer . Newly certified unions
will no longer be willing to settle for short - term contracts.
On the other hand, as the employer ' s absolute duty to bargain
with a newly certified union will henceforth be measured by
the contract term rather than by the 1-year rule , employers
will of course prefer short -term contracts . Thus, the term
of the initial contract between an employer and a certified
union will be one of the hotly contested is sues at the bargaining
table . Consequently, we think it reasonable to infer that fewer
contracts will be executed during the certification year and
industrial unrest will increase . The end result will be that
the 1 -year certification rule as herein modified will no longer
encourage the execution of collective -bargaining contracts nor
enchance the stability of industrial relations , the very purposes
for which it was designed.
For these reasons we cannot concur in the majority's
decision to overrule the Quaker Maid principle and modify the
Centr-O-Cast doctrine . We would dismiss the petition in this
case on the ground that the existing , contract between the
Employer and the IAM is a bar to an immediate election.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM INC., and LOCAL 1220,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL ,1 Petitioner and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS, CIO.
Cases Nos . 13-RC-3421 and 13-RC-1888 . June 25, 1954
DECISION , ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act in Case No. 13-RC - 3421, and upon the
Employer's motion for clarification of the certification in
Case No. 13 - RC-1888, a consolidated hearing was held before
Hubert J. Sigal , 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 Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
Contrary to the Employer and the IBEW , the Intervenor,
Local 666 , International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees
& Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and
Canada ( IATSE ), AFL, herein called Local 666, contends that
I Herein called the IBEW.
108 NLRB No. 206.