Reliable Mailing Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 1263 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

RELIABLE MAILING SERVICE COMPANY 1263
majority of the employees in voting group (i) also elect to be repre-
sented by a union, then the Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to such union for a separate unit of
production and maintenance employees, which the Board under the
circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining.
However, if a majority of the employees in any of the voting groups
(a) through (h) do not vote for the union seeking to represent them in
a separate unit, such group or groups will be appropriately included
in the same unit with the employees in voting group (i) and their votes
will be pooled with those in voting group (i).s The Regional Director
conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the labor organization selected by a majority of the em-
ployees in the pooled group, which the Board in such circumstances
finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
3 We reject the request of the IAM that the elections directed herein be conducted without
using the pooling method of tallying ballots established by the Board in American Potash &
Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418 Accordingly, we shall accord the IAM a place on
the ballot in each of the separate elections herein. We reject also the contentions of the
various craft unions that no union seeking a production and maintenance unit should
appear on the ballot in any "craft unit" election, and therefore, the IAM, Steelworkers,
and Chemical Workers will all appear as choices in each of the elections directed herein.
If any votes are pooled, they are to be tallied by counting votes for a union seeking a
separate unit as valid votes cast, but neither for nor against any union seeking to repre-
sent the more comprehensive unit; all other votes are to be accorded their face value,
whether for representation by a union seeking the comprehensive unit or for no union.
Reliable Mailing Service Company and Bindery Workers' Local
Union No. 20, International Bindery Workers, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 7-RC-2639. August 26, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ruth Greenberg, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. '
i At the hearing the Intervenor moved that the petition should be dismissed because
of revocations of authorizations which it unsuccessfully sought to introduce . As showing
of interest is matter for administrative determination which is not subject to collateral
attack, the hearing officer properly rejected the proffered revocations . The motion is
therefore denied. Master-Craft Corporation, 92 NLRB 524.
113 NLRB No. 129.
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
The Employer operates a mailing service in Detroit, Michigan, cir-
culating advertising and other printed matter supplied by its custom-
ers. It maintains address lists, prepares materials for mailing, and
delivers them as directed by its customers. During 1954, the Employ-
er's total purchases from outside the State were valued at approxi-
mately $1,000. During the same period, the Employer sold mailing
labels, prepared from its address lists and valued at in excess of $18,-
000, which it shipped directly to customers outside Michigan. The Em-
ployer, also rendered services valued at approximately $61,000 to cus-
tomers located in Michigan, including a newspaper with gross annual
income exceeding $500,000, multistate chain stores with annual sales
exceeding $10,000,000, and an enterprise which annually ships products
valued at in excess of $50,000 outside the State. Of its services, ap-
proximately $48,000 worth were performed on materials, valued in
excess of $200,000, which were mailed by the Employer on behalf, of its
customers to addressees located outside the State.
The Employer and the Intervenor 2 contend, contrary to the Peti-
tioner, that on these facts the Board should not assert jurisdiction in
this case . It is clear that the Employer's inflow and indirect outflow
fall below the minimum standards set forth in Jonesboro Grain Dry-
ing Cooperative Association I for the assertion of jurisdiction. Simi-
larly, the labels shipped directly out of Michigan do not alone satisfy
the direct outflow standards of that case . There remains the ques-
tion, however, whether materials delivered to the United States post
office by the Employer on behalf of its customers for delivery to ad-
dressees located outside the State should also be considered as direct
outflow within the meaning of the Jonesboro decision. That decision,
insofar as pertinent, states that the Board will assert jurisdiction over
An enterprise which produces or handles goods and ships such
goods out of State, . . . valued at $50,000 or more.
In the instant case, the materials mailed by the Employer are
usually mailed under a postal permit held by the customer in its name.
The customer holding the permit is required to maintain a deposit ac-
count at the post office in which the customer may make advance de-
posits in anticipation of mailing. If the customer's deposit account is
insufficient to cover postage on mail delivered to the post office by the
Employer, the Employer advances the deficit to permit immediate
mailing. The Employer bills customers for postage advances im-
mediately and separately from billings for services. No service charge
is made for such advances. In addition, it appears that although spe-
2 Detroit Mailers Union No. 40, International Typographical Union, intervened at the
hearing on the basis of a current contractual interest.
3 110 NLRB 481.
RELIABLE MAILING' SERVICE COMPANY 1265
.cific addressees may be supplied and determined by the Employer's
mailing lists , the area to be covered by any mailing is determined by
the customer.
We conclude, under the circumstances, that the mail destined for
out-of-State addressees is not shipped out-of-State by the Employer
within the meaning of the Jonesboro standard. Implicit in the cur-
rent direct outflow standard is the requirement that, in order to qualify
as the shipper of goods produced or handled, the enterprise involved,
and not some other entity, must determine' the destination of the goods
shipped 4 In the instant case, although specific addressees are de-
termined by the Employer's address lists, if is the Employer's custom-
ers who determine the area to which the materials are to be shipped.
Hence, the customers, rather than the Employer, are the shippers of
the mail to out-of-State addressees and such out-of-State mail does not
constitute direct outflow of the Employer. Accordingly, as the Em-
ployer does not meet any of the Board's jurisdictional standards, we
find that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and PETERSON, dissenting :
We dissent from the dismissal of this case contrary to the plain
words of the present jurisdictional standards.
The Jonesboro decision stated that the Board would assert jurisdic-
tion over, inter alia,
An enterprise which produces or handles goods and ships such
goods out of State, . . . valued at $50,000 or more.
This Employer processes or "handles" advertising materials sup-
plied by its customers and ships such goods out of State by mailing
to out-of State addressees, such goods being "valued at $50,000 or more"
* The Board , Member Murdock dissenting, similarly interpreted the direct outflow stand-
ard of a previous jurisdictional plan in Thomas Bulen McCormack d/b/a John McCormack
Co. and C. N. Hill, 107 NLRB 606, in which it found that deliveries of produce by
.a packingshed operator to railroad cars for out-of-State, shipment at the direction of the
grower of the produce did not constitute direct outflow of the packingshed operator for
jurisdictional purposes The change in the language of the direct outflow standard since
that decision was not intended to alter this interpretation. Cf. C. A. Glass Company, Inc,
Coachella Valley Divroseon , 111 NLRB 1366, in which the Board, under the present juris-
dictional standards , asserted jurisdiction over a packingshed operation, which unlike that
in the McCormack case, also sold the produce that it packed, thus determining the destina-
tion of the produce and becoming its shipper within the meaning of the direct outflow
standard as set forth in the Jonesboro decision
8 Even if the Employer were considered as a link in the chain of interstate commerce by
N irtue of its services in connection with the mail sent to out-of-State addressees on behalf
of its customers, the standards set forth in Bmeed4ng Transfer Company, 110 NLRB 493,
-would not be satisfied as the Employer 's annual income from such services is less than
$100,000.
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(actually $200,000). Therefore, it clearly meets the test of the Jones-
boro standard.
The majority, however, says it does not because of an "implicit"
requirement in the standard that the enterprise which "ships" the
goods must also "determine the destination." In effect they are saying
that the standard does not mean what it says-that there was an un-
expressed additional requirement which they now read into it.
We have heretofore both jointly and severally expressed our dis-
sents to the adoption of more restrictive jurisdictional standards by
a majority of the Board a year ago.6 We do not think the shrinking
process should be carried beyond the text of those standards by reading
into them further restrictions which are inconsistent with the plain
language thereof, and which result in refusals to assert jurisdiction.
Moreover, beyond the fact that this additional unexpressed require-
ment now read into the Jonesboro standard bears no relationship to
the impact of the employer's operations on commerce, it is plain
that the added requirement is in fact met here. This Employer in
fact "determines the destination" of the advertising materials shipped,
because the envelopes are prepared from its private mailing list, the
names and addresses of which are unknown to the customers who con-
tract for its services. But here again we are met by the fact that the
majority having imported a new test of who "determines the destina-
tion," again says that their words have a hidden meaning different
from the plain meaning. By "destination," they don't mean the spe-
cific address to which the materials are shipped and delivered-they
mean the general area within the confines of which the specific ad-
dresses are located. Since the customer contracts for mailings in a
particular area he determines the "destination" they say, even though
he doesn't know specifically where or to whom the materials are ad-
dressed and delivered.
We find great difficulty in discharging our responsibilities to ad-
minister and apply jurisdictional standards and concepts where simple
words like "ship" and "destination" are given esoteric meanings totally
at variance with the ordinary meaning of the words. Furthermore,
we are at a loss to understand this recurring straining to arrive at
interpretations which result in dismissals of cases where jurisdiction
would otherwise be asserted. Finally, we believe that the result,here
is inconsistent with C. A. Glass, 111 NLRB 1366, a very recent case
where the Board unanimously applied this Jonesboro standard to
assert jurisdiction over an employer who, as here, received materials
from the owners, and performed all operations necessary to ensure
delivery of the materials into the possession of the recipients, includ-
ing the determination of their identity.
6 See our dissenting opinions in Breeding Transfer Company, 110 NLRB 493.