Ludlow Typograph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 724 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the Re-
spondent's offer of reinstatement , less net earnings 12 during said periods . Said loss
of pay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294. It will also be recommended
that the Respondent make available to the Board , upon request, payroll , and other
records to facilitate the determination of the amounts due these employees under
this recommended remedy.
The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of a character which
strike at the roots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act. As these unfair labor
practices are persuasively related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the
Act, a danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Re-
spondent's conduct in the past . The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted
unless the remedial order is coextensive with the threat . In order therefore to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act and to prevent a re-
currence of unfair labor practices , I will recommend that the Respondent cease and
desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in
the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Federation of Labor is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Omer S.
Bradshaw , Charles Edward Hem, Harold Harlan Hetzer , George Eugene Laidley,
James C. Lewallen , R. W. Ormand , and Stanley L. Wright , thereby discouraging mem-
bership in American Federation of Labor, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By conditioning reemployment upon the signing of a petition repudiating their
union activity, by threatening to reduce wages and require the service of a 4-year
apprenticeship if the Union came into the plant , by threatening to move the plant
after accelerating the completion of its contract if the Union came into the plant,
and by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the above-
named employees , the Respondent has interfered with , restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
'a Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440 ,497-498.
Ludlow Typograph Company and International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, and Its Local 1024,
IUE-CIO . Case No. 13-CA-1869. August 16,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 17, 1955, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respond-
113 NLRB No. 77.
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY 725
ent and the Charging Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case,'
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifications :
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent on and
after September 17, 1954, refused to bargain with the certified bar-
gaining representative of its employees in violation of Section 8 (a)
(5) and (1) of the Act for the reasons fully discussed in American
Seating Company' In view of this decision, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that it is unnecessary to decide whether there is sufficient
evidence in this case to warrant an additional finding that the Re-
spondent refused to bargain in bad faith and for the purpose of avoid-
ing or delaying its statutory duty under the Act. Such a finding would
require no addition to the Order we shall issue to remedy the viola-
tion already found.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the Respondent, Ludlow Typograph Company,
of Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union
of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all its employees in the appropriate unit set forth in
the Intermediate Report with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with International Union
of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment, and embody any understanding reached in a
signed agreement.
1 The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and briefs
adequately reflect its position.
2 106 NLRB 250. Chairman Farmer agrees with the disposition of this case. How-
ever , he does not adopt the full rationale of American Seating which cited with approval
Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59. Boston Machine involved a schism sit-
uation which Chairman Farmer deems substantially different from that present in this
case ; therefore he finds it unnecessary to rely upon the latter decision , with which he
has already reserved judgment. See Arthur C. Harvey Company, 110 NLRB 338.
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Post at its plant in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice at-
tached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of
the Respondent, be posted by it for a period of sixty (60) consecu-
tive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration 'of the above De-
cision and Order.
3 Said notice shall be amended however by substituting for the «ords "The Recoin-
mendations of a Tual Examiner " the words "A Decision and Order ." In 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."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The primary issue in this case is whether Ludlow Typograph Company , herein
called Respondent , was justified in September , October, and November , 1954 in assert-
ing as a bar to bargaining with a newly certified union (International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, CIO , herein called IUE-CIO ) the existence
of a contract between Respondent and another union (International Association of
Machinists , AFL, herein called IAM ) which had a terminal date of November 1,
1955.
THE FACTS
On October 9, 1952, following an election , the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board , certified the IAM as the bargaining representative of Re-
spondent 's production and maintenance employees . In December 1952, Respondent
and the IAM entered into a collective-bargaining agreement covering employees in
the certified unit and 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 August 10, 1953, the IUE-CIO informed Respondent that it (IUE-CIO)
represented a majority of Respondent 's employees and requested Respondent to meet
for bargaining purposes . On August 11, 1953, the IUE-CIO filed with the Board
a petition seeking certification as the representative of Respondent 's production and
maintenance employees ( Case No. 13-RC-3504, not reported in printed volumes of
Board Decisions and Orders ). On August 13, 1953, the Board 's Regional Director
dismissed this petition on the ground that a valid election had been held in the same
unit within the preceding 12-month period . The IUE-CIO filed an appeal.
On or about September 3, 1953 , the JUE-CIO filed a second petition seeking
certification as the representative of Respondent 's production and maintenance em-
ployees ( Case No. 13-RC-3561, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions
and Orders ). At the same time ( on or about September 3, 1953 ) IUE-CIO wrote
Respondent informing it of this second petition, stating that it (IUE-CIO) had
information that Respondent was negotiating "a new labor contract with a minority
union" and that "inasmuch as IUE-CIO represents a majority of your maintenance
and production employees , we inform you that to proceed with these negotiations
you do so at your peril ," and requesting Respondent to meet with the IUE-CIO.
On or about September 9, 1953 , the Board 's Regional Director dismissed the second
petition of IUE-CIO on the same ground that he had earlier dismissed the petition
in Case No . 13-RC-3504.
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY 727
On September 16, 1953 (while the appeal in 13-RC-3504 was pending but within
1 year of the-date of the certification` of the IAM) Respondent and the IAM signed
anew bargaining contract, effective retroactively from August 17, 1953, to November
1, 1955.- Except for an inc'r ase'in wages' minor changes in certain other provisions,
and the new termination date, this contract was identical with the first contract.
' On or about October 9, 1953, the parties were informed that the Board sustained
the.Regional Director's dismissal of, the petition in Case No. 13-RC-3504. On or
about October 28, 1953, the IUE-CIO requested the Board to reconsider its action
and to proceed on its petitions.
By order dated,November 25, 1953, the Board reversed the dismissal of the petition
in•Case'No.13-RC-3504.
'On June-25, 1954, the Board directed that an election be held. The election was
held on July 16, 1954, and the IUE-CIO won. On July 26, 1954, the IUE-CIO
was certified as the bargaining representative 'of '
all production and factory maintenance employees at the Employer's [the Re-'
spondent's] Chicago, Illinois, plant, including pantograph production machine
operators, but excluding toolmakers, machinists, engineering employees, drafts-
men, type face design department employees, professional employees, office em-
ployees, messengers, guards, watchmen, foremen, assistant foremen, foreladies,
assistant foreladies , chief shop timekeeper ; management personnel , and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
In the representation proceedings Respondent and the IAM, relying upon the print
ciple established in The Quaker Maid Company, Inc., 71 NLRB 915, that a contract
signed within the certification year constitutes a bar to a determination of repre-
sentatives, sought dismissal of the proceedings. The Board (Members Murdock and
Peterson dissenting) rejected this contention and directed that an election be held.
The Board (Chairman Farmer and Members Rodgers and Beeson) reexamined the
Quaker Maid rule and decided "it should no longer be followed." 1
By letter dated August 18, 1954, the IUE-CIO informed Respondent of the names
of its negotiating committee and requested a date for the purpose of discussing a labor
contract between Respondent and the IUE-CIO and its Local 1024.
Conferences for negotiating purposes were held between representatives of Re-
spondent and representatives of the IUE-CIO and its Local 1024 on September 17,
October 7, 15, and 19, and on November. 16, 1954.
At the meeting on September 17, 1954, Respondent took the position that the IAM
had rights arising out of the contract signed on September 16, 1953, which could not
be disregarded without the consent of the IAM,z that the contract signed September
16, 1953, was still in force and effect and remained binding until its expiration date
in 1955, and that the question of new hourly rates was not open for negotiation, under
the contract,3 and Respondent was not obliged to consider these matters but would
listen to arguments for new hourly wage rates. Respondent did not abandon com-
pletely its position concerning the IAM's rights until after it (Respondent) received
a letter dated November 11, 1954, from the IAM releasing Respondent "from the
See Ludlow Typograph Company, 108 NLRB 1463
The record infers, although there is no direct evidence to this effect, that the IAM, by
letters dated September 2 and 15, 1954, asserted certain rights under the contract and
requested the discharge of certain employees for failure to pay IAM dues.
3 The contract provides, inter alia :
Either party to this agreement shall have the right to open this agreement for the
sole and limited purpose of negotiating what the hourly wage rate shall be, but for
no other purpose, for the period November 1, 1954, to October 31, 1955, both inclu-
sive. This right, however, shall not exist in favor of either party hereto unless 60
days prior to November 1, 1954, either party shall have served written notice upon
the other party hereto of its intention to negotiate what the hourly wage rates shall
be for said period November 1, 1954, to October 31, 1955, both Inclusive. (If a
period less than 60 days shall by Federal law be recognized as sufficient notice of
intent to negotiate the aforesaid hourly wage rates for said period, then either party,
may give such lesser number of days' notice of its intention to negotiate what the'
hourly wage rates shall be for said period from November 1, 1954, to October 31,
1955, both inclusive
Respondent contends that'the IUE-CIO letter dated August 18, 1954, Is not a notice of
intention within the meaning of the above-quoted section of the contract. In view of the
rulings hereinafter made, the Trial Examiner is not passing upon the merit or lack of
merit of this contention. '
379288-56-vol . 113-47
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
terms and conditions of the agreement" and stating that the IAM had no further
interest in the matter and was withdrawing its (the IAM's) claims (made in its
earlier correspondence).
At the meetings after September 17, 1954, Respondent's position was substantially
the same as that taken at the September 17 meeting-that the IAM contract was in
full force and effect and remained binding until its expiration date in 1955 and the
IUE-CIO was required to assume this existing contract.
On October 20, 1954, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth-Circuit
entered an opinion in Modine Manufacturing Company v. Grand Lodge International
Association of Machinists, reported in 216 F. 2d 326. In that case the court decided
that after a Board certification of another union an earlier bargaining agent has no
rights under a contract executed prior to the certification and ceases to be the bargain-
ing representatives as a result of the certification. The court further indicated that
after such a certification an employer is compelled "to bargain and deal with" the
newly certified union exclusively and that the existing contract "had to be adminis-
tered by" the newly certified union.
After the decision in the Modine case and after the IAM abandoned its interest
in this matter Respondent contended, in substance, that the IUE-CIO was obligated,
by the terms of the contract entered into by the Respondent and the IAM and was
required to assume the existing contract, and that Respondent was not required to
bargain for a new contract or with respect to changes in the provisions of the contract.
Throughout the conferences Respondent evidenced a willingness to recognize the
IUE-CIO as the representative of its employees and stated a willingness to negotiate
or discuss subjects "properly open for discussion." However, Respondent refused
to negotiate or discuss 20 demands (bearing upon rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment) presented by the IUE-CIO, con-
tending that in view of the contract these demands were not "properly open for dis-
cussion ." At the conferences after October 15, 1954, Respondent evidenced a willing-
ness to modify the contract by substituting the IUE-CIO for the IAM wherever the
latter appeared in the contract but would not agree to modify the contract in any
other manner. The IUE-CIO did not want the terms and conditions stated in the
contract entered into with the IAM and sought conferences in which all matters bear-
ing upon rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment are open for negotiation and bargaining. As noted above Respondent took
the position that such matters are not open for bargaining in view of the contract-
signed September 16, 1953.
On November 18, 1954, the IUE-CIO and its Local 1024 filed the charge herein.
The complaint issued December 15, 1954, and the hearing before the Trial Examiner
was held on January 17, 1955.
Contentions
Respondent contends that the certification of the IUE-CIO merely resulted in the
substitution of a new bargaining representative for its production and maintenance
employees in place of the old representative (in place of the IAM), with the substan-
tive terms of the contract signed September 16, 1953, remaining unchanged. In sup-
port of this position , Respondent argues that the IAM was the agent of the production
and maintenance employees when the contract with that organization was executed
and that it (Respondent) and the production and maintenance employees, as princi-
pals, are bound by that contract to the expiration date thereof, notwithstanding that
the employees have changed their agent. Counsel for the General Counsel, on the
other hand, contends that the certification of the IUE-CIO resulted in making the
existing contract with the IAM inoperative. Similar contentions, under similar cir-
cumstances , were made in American Seating Company, 106 NLRB 250, and the
Board ruled contrary to the position taken by Respondent herein. Respondent,
nevertheless, asserts that the later decision of the Sixth Circuit in the Modine case
supports its position and is controlling herein.
In the Modine case the issue before the court was whether the IAM retained the
rights accorded to it under a contract of 1948 (expiring April 30, 1951) after the
Board certified another union (the CIO). The court found that the certification of
the CIO deprived the IAM of its status as bargaining representative, that the provi-
sion of the contract as to the JAM and the payment of dues became inoperative as
soon as the IAM ceased to be the bargaining representative, and that after the certifi-
cation of the CIO the JAM had no rights under the contract. The court did indicate,
however, that after the certification of the CIO the employer was compelled "to
bargain and deal with" the CIO exclusively and that after the certification of the CIO
the contract "had to be administered by CIO" (page 329). Nevertheless, the court
stated it was not passing upon whether the substantive provisions of the contract "as
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY 729
to wages, hours, etc.," were in full force and effect up to April 30, 1951 ( the expira-
tion date of the contract ) or "were still binding after the certification of CIO."
Accordingly , it appears that the Modine case is not apposite herein.
Respondent further contends that American Seating has been "superseded" by
Lion Oil Company, 109 NLRB 680, by California Cotton Cooperative Association
Ltd., 110 NLRB 1494 and by other cases (cited by Respondent in its brief ) and that
the Board now considers the decision in American Seating "unsound." The Trial
Examiner finds this contention to be without merit.
In a recent representation case before this Agency , the Board refused to determine
whether rights and obligations conferred by an existing contract must be assumed
by a newly certified union ( and thus did not disturb the Board's ruling in American
Seating, supra ). See International Harvester Company, 111 NLRB 276. In that
case Board Member Rodgers indicated that in his opinion a position similar to that
advanced by Respondent herein has merit (see footnote 4).
In Fabrica De Muebles Puerto Rico, 107 NLRB 905 the Trial Examiner decided
that an existing contract between an employer and an earlier -bargaining agent did
not afford the employer a lawful reason for refusing to bargain with a newly certi-
fied union . After the issuance of the Trial Examiner's report the employer and
the newly certified union signed a bargaining contract . In view of the new contract
the Board (Chairman . Farmer and Member Rodgers ; with Member Murdock dis-
senting), "without passing upon the Trial Examiner 's findings , conclusions , or rec-
ommendations ," dismissed the complaint , on the theory that the basic issue had be-
come moot . In his dissenting opinion Board Member Murdock indicated that in his
view an existing contract between an employer and an earlier bargaining agent is
not a lawful reason for restricting bargaining with a newly certified union.
In another recent CA case (Hexton Furniture Company, 111 NLRB 342) the
Board cited with approval the American Seating Company case (see footnote 5).-
However, in the Hexton case the Board did not pass upon the issue involved ' herein.
In the opinion of the Trial Examiner the American Seating Company case is the
controlling decision herein and the Trial Examiner rejects Respondent 's contentions
noted above.
Respondent further contends that by reversing the principle announced in the
Quaker Maid case , supra (as was done in the representation case involving parties
who are also parties herein ), and by finding an unlawful refusal to bargain herein
(and thus that the existing contract negotiated with the IAM is not binding on the
production and maintenance employees ), the Board would be making an unlawful
retroactive application of its rules which would affect accrued rights and thwart the
policy of the Act. The Board 's reasons in American Seating Company, supra, for
rejecting the contention that the contract with an earlier bargaining representa-
tive was binding upon a newly certified union requires a rejection of this conten-
tion . See also N. L. R. B. v.1. I. Case Company, 134 F. 2d 70, 72 (C. A. 7), affd. 321
U. S. 322; which was cited by the Board in footnote 22 in the American Seating
Company case. Respondent 's contentions , noted in this paragraph , are hereby
rejected.
The IUE-CIO contends that Respondent 's position , that the IUE-CIO was obli-
gated by the terms of the contract with the IAM, was raised in bad faith to defeat,
or at least delay, Respondent 's obligation to bargain with the IUE-CIO. It is noted
that Counsel for the General Counsel does not make a similar contention. (See
Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc., 107 NLRB 299, footnote 10.) Fur-
thermore , if the American Seating Company case is controlling herein, and the Trial
Examiner believes it is, the good or bad faith of Respondent is not material. Ac-
cordingly , the Trial' Examiner is not ruling upon this contention of the IUE-CIO.
In view of the foregoing the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the con-
tract with the IAM did- not afford Respondent a lawful reason for its actions at the
conferences for negotiation purposes held on September 17, October 7, October
15, October 19, and November 16, 1954, and that by its conduct at these conferences
Respondent refused to bargain with the IUE-CIO in violation of Section 8 (a) (5)
and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.
ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In summary , the Trial Examiner finds and concludes:
1. Respondent -is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act .4
Respondent is an Illinois corporation having its principal office and place of business
In Chicago , Illinois , where it engages in the manufacture of composing room equipment.
Its annual purchases of raw materials , consisting chiefly of steel, brass , copper , and grey
730 DECISIONS. OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. 2. International Union of .Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, and its
Local 1024, are, and at all times herein mentioned have been, labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
' 3. • All production and factory maintenance employees at Respondent's Chicago,
Illinois,, plant, including :pantograph production machine operators, but. excluding
toolmakers, machinists, engineering employees, draftsmen, type face, design depart-
ment employees, professional employees, office employees, messengers, guards,
watchmen, foremen, assistant foremen, foreladies, assistant foreladies, chief shop
timekeeper, management personnel, and all other supervisors as defined,in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, constitute and at all times material herein
did constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective, bargaining within, the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. At all times since on or about July 26, 1954, the IUE-CIO has been the ex-
clusive representative of all employees in the aforementioned unit for the purposes
of- collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment., - ;
5. The activities of Respondent (outlined in this report) occurring on and after
September 17, 1954, establish that Respondent refused to bargain with the IUE-CIO
within the meaning of the Act. ,
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the opera=
tions of Respondent's Chicago plant, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the'free flow of commerce.
• 7. By the aforesaid refusals to bargain Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and '(1) and.Sec=
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .5
[Recommendations omitted from publication.] • ,
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National,Labor Re'
lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below, in respect
to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is:
'All production and factory maintenance employees at the Chicago, Illinois,
plant, including pantograph production machine operators, but excluding tool-
makers, machinists, engineering employees, draftsman, type face design de-
partment employees, professional employees, office employees, messengers,
guards, watchmen, foremen, assistant foremen, foreladies, assistant foreladies,
chief shop timekeeper, management personnel, and all other supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY,
Employer.
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.
iron castings, amount In value to more than $1,000,000 of which approximately 75 per-
cent represent shipments to it from points outside the State of Illinois Respondent's
annual sales of finished products amount in value to more than $5,000,000 of which ap-
proximately 80-percent represent shipments to points outside the State of Illinois.
s In view of the foregoing, Respondent's motion to dismiss (made in the answer to the
complaint) is denied