Mergenthaler Linotype Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1937

3 N.L.R.B. 131 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of MEROENTIIALER LINOTYPE COMPA NY aiid UNITED
L` LECTRIOAL & RADIO WORKERS OF AMERICA , LINOTYPE LOCAL No.
1222
Case No. R-186
Linotype and Printing Equipment Alanufocturing Induxtry--EIcetion Ordered:
controversy concerning representation of employees : refusal by employer to
recognize union as exclusive representative; rival organizations; substantial
doubt as to majority status--Units A ppropriate for Collective Bargaining:
production employees; eligibility for membership in petitioning union; depart-
mental tiupekeepers included in-Certification of Representotires.
Mr. Lester Levin for the Board.
Glewion, jilcLanahan, Merritt d Ingraham, by Mr. henry Clifton,
Jr., of New York City, for the Company.
Al,. Fiank Xch iner, of New York City, for United Electrical &
Radio Workers of America, Linotype Local No. 1222.
Alp. Jerome Y. AStuavn, of New York City, for International Union,
Metal Polishers, Platers, Buffers, and Helpers, Local No. 8.
Al,'. Henry W. Lehmann, of counsel to the Board.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
July 27, 1937
'fire National Labor Relations Board, having found that a ques-
tion affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of
employ' es of the Mergenthaler Linotype Company, Brooklyn, New
York, awl that:
(1) all the employees of the Company, including the departmental
timekeepers, but excluding employees in Department N, and
(2) the employees in Department N, including the departmental
timekeepers, but excluding from both groups the following classes
of employees: executives, foremen, assistant foremen, supervisors,
set-up men, employees in the engineering department, employees in
the research and development department, time-study employees,
employees in the main office and in the office of the matrix factory,
and employees in classifications represented by the International
Typographical Union, constitute, respectively, units appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, and acting pursuant
to the power vested in it by Section 9 (c) of said Act, and pursuant
to Article III, Section 8 of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations,-Series 1, as amended, hereby
131
132 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTS that, as part of the investigation to ascertain represen-
tatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Mergen-
thaler Linotype Company, Brooklyn, New York, elections by secret
ballot shall be conducted within a period of fifteen (15) days after
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in the matter
as the agent of the National Labor Relations Board and subject to
Article III, Section 9 of said Rules and Regulations, among the
employees in each of said units, respectively, on the pay roll of
the Company as of the date of this Direction, to determine in the
case of the first unit above set forth, whether or not they desire to
be represented by the United Electrical & Radio Workers, Linotype
Local No. 1222, for the purposes of collective bargaining, and in
the case of the second unit above set forth, whether they desire to
be represented by the United Electrical & Radio Workers, Linotype
Local No. 1222, or by the International Union, Metal Polishers,
Platers, Buffers, and Helpers, Local No. 8, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN MADDEN took no part in the consideration of the above
Direction of Elections.
[SAME TITLE]
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 1, 1937
STATEMENT OF CASE I
On June 11, 1937, United Electrical & Radio Workers of America,
Linotype Local No. 1222, herein called the Union, filed with the
Regional Director for the Second Region (New York, New York)
a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of the production employees of the
Mergenthaler Linotype Company, Brooklyn, New York, herein called
the Company, and requesting the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, to conduct an investigation pursuant to
Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. On July 6, 1937, the Union filed an amended
petition which, in substance, states that (1) all the production em-
ployees of the Company, excluding employees in Department N, and
(2) the production employees in Department N, but excluding from
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 133
both groups executives, foremen, assistant foremen, supervisors, set-
up men, time-study employees, and employees in the main office and
in the office of the matrix factory, constitute, respectively, units ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining. The amended peti-
tion further alleges that petitioner represents a majority of em-
ployees in each of the aforesaid units. On July 8, 1937, 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
1, as amended, authorized the Regional Director to conduct an inves-
tigation and to provide for an appropriate hearing. The Regional
Director issued a notice of hearing to be held at New York City on
July 9, 1937, copies of which were duly served upon the Company,
the Union, the International Union of Polishers, Platers, Buffers,
and Helpers, Local No. 8, the International Association of Machin-
ists, and the International Typographical Union. Each of the three
last afore-mentioned organizations are labor organizations named in
the amended petition as claiming to represent some of the Company's
employees.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at New York City on
July 9, 1937, before Samuel Gusack, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Board. The Board, the Company, the Union, and the
lnnternational Union of Metal Polishers, Platers, Buffers, and Help-
ers, Local No. 8, were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. Neither the international Association of Machinists nor
the International Typographical Union appeared at the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties
appearing. No motions or exceptions to rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner were made during the course of the hearing.
After examining the record in the case, the Board concluded that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of the employees of the Company, and on the basis of such conclusion,
and acting pursuant to Article III, Section 8 of said Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 1, as amended, issued a Direction of Elections on July
27, 1937, in which it was found that said employees constitute two
separate and distinct units appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. Merely for the purpose of expediting the election and
thus to insure to the employees of the Company the full benefit of
their right to collective bargaining as early as possible, the Board
directed the election without at the same time issuing a decision
embodying complete findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Pursuant to the Board's Direction of Elections, elections by secret
ballot were conducted on August 10, 1937, by the Regional Director
49446-38-vol. n1-10
134 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the Second Region among the production employees of the Com-
pany constituting the two bargaining units found appropriate by the
Board . On August 11, 1937, the Regional Director issued and duly
served upon the parties to the proceeding the Intermediate Report
upon the secret ballot. No exceptions to the Intermediate Report
have been filed by any of the parties.
As to the results of the secret ballot, the Regional Director reported
the following :
I. Results of secret ballot for eligible employees except those
employed in Department N :
Total number of employees eligible to vote_______________________ 1, 966
Total number of ballots cast____________________________________ 1,840
Total number of ballots for United Electrical & Radio Workers of
America, Linotype Local No. 1222______________________________ 1,218
Total number of ballots against United Electrical & Radio Workers
of America, Linotype Local No. 1222 -------------------------- 590
Total number of blank ballots__________________________________ 10
Total number of void ballots____________________________________ 4
Total number of challenged ballots_______________________________ 18
II. Results of secret ballot for eligible employees in Depart-
ment N :
Total number of employees eligible to vote_______________________ 37
Total number of ballots cast_____________________________________ 317
Total number of ballots for United Electrical & Radio Workers of
America, Linotype Local No. 1222______________________________ 11
Total number of ballots for International Union, Metal Polishers,
Platers, Buffers, and Helpers, Local No. 8_____________________ 24
Total number of blank ballots____________________________________ 1
Total number of void ballots____________________________________ 0
Total number of challenged ballots______________________________ 1
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Mergenthaler Linotype Company is a New York corporation,
incorporated in 1895, having its executive offices in Brooklyn, New
York. The Company manufactures and sells linotype machines, parts
and matrices therefor, and other printing equipment and accessories.
Its only manufacturing plant in the United States is in Brooklyn,
New York. It has sales offices in Illinois, Louisiana, and California.
It was agreed by stipulation that the Company purchases gray iron
and gray iron castings in the State of New York; both cast and rolled
brass in the State of Connecticut; steel of miscellaneous shapes in the
States of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; aluminum in
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 135
the State of Pennsylvania ; nuts, screws , and bolts in the States of
New York and Connecticut ; and miscellaneous articles in other
States. Approximately 60.35 per cent of the raw materials purchased
by the Company are purchased in the State of New York, and
approximately 39.65 per cent of such materials are purchased in
States other than the State of New York from whence they are
shipped to the Company's plant in Brooklyn, New York. Approxi-
mately 88 per cent of the Company's finished products are shipped
by it to States other than the State of New York.
The Company 's vice president testified at the hearing that the
Company employed 2,443 employees at its plant in Brooklyn, New
York. The total factory pay roll for the year 1936 was $2,743,785,
and the gross business was $7,047,099 . 79. The Company is the
largest concern in the country engaged in manufacturing linotype
equipment.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Electrical & Radio Workers of America, Linotype Local
No. 1222, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for
Industrial Organization , admitting to its membership all production
workers in the plant of the Company at Brooklyn, New York, except
supervisory and clerical employees.
The International Association of Machinists, the International
Typographical Union, and the International Union of Polishers,
Platers, Buffers, and Helpers are labor organizations named in the
petition as claiming to represent some employees of the Company.
The conditions of admission to membership in these organizations
do not appear from the record.
III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
As indicated above, it is claimed by the petitioner that ( 1) all the
production employees of the Company , excluding employees in De-
partment N, and (2) the production employees in Department N,
but excluding from both groups executives , foremen, assistant fore-
men, supervisors , set-up men , time-study employees , employees in the
engineering department , and employees in the main office and in the
office of the matrix factory, constitute , respectively, units appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining . At the hearing all the parties
present agreed to the description of the two bargaining units as set
forth in the petition , except that . in addition to the classes of
employees therein excluded they also agreed to exclude from both
units employees in the research and development departments and
employees in classifications represented by the International Typo-
graphical Union.
136 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The sole question is whether departmental timekeepers shall be
included in the above bargaining units. The Union seeks to include
the departmental timekeepers. The Company contends, however,
that the timekeepers should not belong to the same organization as
the production workers whose time they keep and whose wage is
based upon the amount of time spent upon different operations. In
support of its contention, the Company advances the argument that
the organization of timekeepers in a bargaining unit with the pro-
duction workers would encourage collusion and deception as to the
amount of time spent upon particular operations with the design of
fraudulently increasing the wages of the production workers in-
volved. It is contended that the timekeepers represent management
in the checking of the work of the production employees. Other
considerations, however, persuade us to the view, as urged by the
Union, that the timekeepers should be included in the groups for
purposes of collective bargaining.
To avoid unnecessary expense and delay, the parties submitted
an agreed statement describing the duties and responsibilities of
the departmental timekeepers of the Company. The testimony at
the hearing amplified this statement without contradicting it in any
essential particulars. The agreed statement and the testimony de-
scribing the functions of the departmental timekeepers do not
indicate that their duties are other than routine in character. Each
production worker has a time card upon which the timekeeper
records the time spent upon each job either at the end of the particu-
lar job or on Friday at closing time. , The time is also recorded
upon a master sheet. This is transferred to the bookkeeping depart-
ment and to the treasurer's office where the wages earned by each
production worker are computed. The time cards here described
are to be distinguished from the time cards punched by the em
ployees when they arrive at and leave work. The time appearing
on these cards must correspond to the time recorded by the time-
keepers. A foreman of timekeepers maintains supervision over
their work. Like other employees they are hired and discharged
by the employment manager. Although they are paid upon a weekly
salary basis, it was testified at the hearing that their salary varies
from $18 to $30 per week, which is less than that received by certain
types of production employees. It does not appear that they in
any way supervise the work of the production employees.
Other persuasive factors must be taken into consideration. The
departmental timekeepers are eligible for membership in the Union.
The Union claims, and this was not contradicted, that of approxi-
mately 51 departmental timekeepers employed by the Company, 35
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 137
had, at the time of the hearing, applied for membership in the Union.
Moreover, in the manufacturing plants of other companies with
which the Union has agreements, - timekeepers are admited to
membership. It was also testified that timekeepers have in some
instances been admitted to membership in the International Associa-
tion of Machinists, although this practice is not common.
The nature of the duties of the timekeepers, their organization
in other manufacturing plants in locals of the United Electrical &
Radio Workers, their eligibility to membership in the Union, all
compel us to take the view that the departmental timekeepers should
be included in the two bargaining units. In order to insure to the
employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to organi-
zation and collective bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the
policies of the Act, we find that :
(1) all the employees of the Company, including the depart-
mental timekeepers, but excluding employees in Department N, and
(2) the employees in Department N, including the departmental
timekeepers, but excluding from both groups the following classes
of employees : executives, foremen, assistant foremen, supervisors,
set-up men, employees in the engineering department, employees in
the research and development department, time-study employees,
employees in the main office and in the office of the matrix factory,
and employees in classifications represented by the International
Typographical Union, constitute, respectively, units appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
IV. QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Union claims to represent a majority of employees in each
of the bargaining units. In the petition it was alleged that the
International Association of Machinists, the International Typo-
graphical Union and International Union, Metal Polishers, Platers,
Buffers, and Helpers, Local No. 8, each claim to represent some
employees of the Company. It was agreed that both the Union
and International Union, Metal Polishers, Platers, Buffers, and
Helpers, Local No. 8, represent a substantial number of employees
in the unit composed of production employees in Department N
of the Company. The Company has refused to grant the Union the
exclusive right to bargain collectively with it on behalf of its em-
ployees in the first unit until an election by secret ballot has been
held to determine whether the Union represents a majority in this
unit. The Company also refuses to grant the Union the exclusive
right to bargain collectively with it on behalf of its employees in
Department N until an election by secret ballot has been held to
138 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
determine whether the Union or International Union, Metal Polish-
ers, Platers, Buffers, and Helpers, Local No. 8, represents a ma-
jority of employees in this unit.
Upon the basis of these facts we find that a question has arisen
concerning the representation of the production employees of the
Company in both units.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION ON COMMERCE
We find that the question of representation which has arisen, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the Company described
in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. The following constitute two separate and distinct units ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act:
(1) all the employees of the Company, including the departmental
timekeepers, but excluding employees in Department N, and
(2) the employees in Department N of the Company, including
the departmental timekeepers, but excluding from both groups the
following classes of employees : executives, foremen, assistant fore-
men, supervisors, set-up men, employees in the engineering depart-
ment, employees in the research and development departjnent, time-
study employees, employees in the main office and in the office of the
matrix factory, and employees in classifications represented by the
International Typographical Union.
2. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of the employees in each of the aforesaid units, within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
1, as amended,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 139
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that :
1. United Electrical & Radio Workers of America, Linotype
Local No. 1222, has been selected by a majority of the employees of the
Morgenthaler Linotype Company, including the departmental time-
keepers, but excluding employees in Department N, as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and. that, pur-
suant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, United Electrical
& Radio Workers of America, Linotype Local No. 1222, is the ex-
clusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment; and
2. International Union, Metal Polishers, Platers, Buffers, and
Helpers, Local No. 8, has been selected by a majority of the em-
ployees in Department N of the Morgenthaler Linotype Company,
including the departmental timekeepers, as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to the pro-
visions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, International Union, Metal Pol-
ishers, Platers, Buffers, and Helpers, Local No. 8, is the exclusive
representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment; but excluding from both bar-
ga:ining units the following classes of employees : executives, fore-
men, assistant foremen, supervisors, set-up men, employees in the
engineering department, employees in the research and development
department, time-study employees, employees in the main office and
in the office of the matrix factory, and employees in classifications
represented by the International Typographical Union.