Wlison-Jones Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1940

21 N.L.R.B. 943 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of WILSON-JONES COMPANY and EMPLOYEES BENEVO-
LENT ASSOCIATION OF ELIZABETH, N. J., INC.
In the Matter of WILSON-JONES COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL AS-
SOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 315, A. F. L.
In the Matter Of WILSON-JONES COMPANY and ELIZABETH TYPO-
GRAPHICAL UNION No. 150
Cases Nos. R-1581, R-158, and R-1583, respectively.-Decided
March 02, 1940
General Office Supplies Maniufacti rwq Iialustry-litt,estigotiou of Repie-
sentatives: controversy concerning representation of employees. rival organi-
zations; controversy concerning appropriate unit or units; employer refuses to
recognize and bargain with petitioning unions because of exclusive bargain-
ing contract with industrial union ; exclusive bargaining contract entered into
with industrial union subsequent to filing of petitions by two of the other con-
tending unions and after all the other contending unions had sought recogni-
tion from the Company held no bar to proceeding ; one petition for dismissed
where unit sought composed of industrial employees in one plant found in-
appropriate-unit appropriate for collective bargaiuiuq: possible two plant
unit or craft units: membership bargaining contract in 1937 with industrial
union covering one plant, wage and hour provisions of which observed at other
plant, followed by exclusive bargaining contracts in 1938 and 1939 covering
both plants ; evidence of prior bargaining by one craft and of request for rec-
ognition by all other contending unions before 1939 contract entered into;
determination of unit or units held dependent upon desires of craft employees ;
(Smith, specially concurring) history of collective bargaining on part of ma-
chinist craft group warrants separate election to determine unit in which this
group to be included ; no history of collective bargaining on part of typo-
graphical and pressmen's craft groups prior to or after 1938 exclusive bargain-
ing contract of industrial union; in as much as Madden and Leiserson hold
that separate elections be held for employees in typographical and pressmen's
craft groups Smith concurs in view of Madden as to character and effects of
such election; ( Leiserson concurring in part and dissenting in part) dissents
as to two plant unit, industrial union did not represent majority of employees
at one plant when 1938 exclusive bargaining contract entered into; concurs as
to election for machinist craft group on ground Board had previously certi-
fied such a craft group in other plant ; concurs in elections for all craft groups
to determine choice between crafts and one plant industrial unit-Elections
Ordered: effect of elections upon outstanding collective agreement: outstanding
exclusive bargaining contract covering two plant industrial unit no bar to elec-
tions under doctrine of Globe case since made after representation proceedings
begun; ( Madden ) recognition and substantive terms of contract otherwise valid
inoperative as to any craft upon establishment in these proceedings of such craft
as a separate bargaining unit with a statutory representative for such craft.
21 N. L. R. B., No. 92.
943
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. Millard Midonick, for the Board.
Cox d Wellburg, by Mr. William H. D. Cox, of Newark, N. J., for
the Company.
Mr. Francis P. Meehan, Mr. Lawrence S. Hickey, and Mr. Thomas
Fruda, of Elizabeth, N. J., for the E. B. A.
Isserman, Isserman d Kapelsohn, by Mr. Sol D. Kapelsohn, Mr.
Morris Isserman, and Mr. Jack Lerner, of Newark, N. J.; and
Mr. Paul R. Hutchings, of Washington. D. C., for the I. A. M.
Mr. Harry Wendrich,, of Newark, N. J., for the Typographical
Union and the Pressmen's Union.
Mr. Samuel L. Rothbard and Mr. E. L. Howard, of Newark, N. J.,
for the United.
Mr. Daniel J. Harrington, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 31, 1939, Employees Benevolent Association of Eliza-
beth, N. J., Inc., herein called the E. B. A., on February 11, 1939,
International Association of Machinists, Lodge 315, A. F. L., herein
called the I. A. M., and on May 13, 1939, Elizabeth Typographical
Union No. 150, A. F. L., herein called the Typographical Union, and
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America, herein called the Pressmen's Union, in the name of the
Typographical Union,' respectively filed with the Regional Director
for the Second Region (New York City) separate petitions, each
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Wilson-Jones Company,2 Eliza-
beth, New Jersey, herein called the Company, and requesting an
investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. On August 25, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act
and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
' During the hearing, hereinafter mentioned . evidence as adduced showing that the peti-
tion was presented by both unions in the name of the Typographical Union Both unions
appeared at the hearing by the same representative
2 Designated in the petitions filed by the I A M and by the Typographical Union and
the Pressmen 's Union as Wilson Jones Co. and Wilson Jones Company , respectively. At
the hearing counsel for the Board moved to amend the name of the Company in the peti-
tions by substituting the name of Wilson -Jones Company for the above titles The
motion was granted.
WILSON-JONES COMPANY 945
and Regulations-Series 2, ordered investigations upon the petitions
and authorized the Regional Director to conduct the investigations
and to provide for appropriate hearings upon due notice. On Octo-
ber 4, 1939, the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section
10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, ordered the three cases
consolidated for the purposes of hearing and all other purposes,
and that one record of such hearing be made.
On October 5, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon
the E. B. A., upon the I. A. M., upon the Typographical Union,,,
and upon United Loose Leaf and Blank Book Workers, Local In-
dustrial Union, No. 148, herein called the United, a labor organiza-
tion claiming to represent employees directly affected by the
investigation.
Pursuant to the notice a hearing was held on October 16, 1939, at
New York City and on October 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, 1939,
at Newark, New Jersey, before Mapes Davidson, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, the E.
B. A., the I. A. M., and the United were represented by counsel,
the Typographical Union and the Pressmen's Union by Harry
Wendrich, State Representative of the Pressmen's Union, and all
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing the I. A. M.
and the Typographical Union and the Pressmen's Union moved to
amend their petitions with respect to the units claimed by them to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. The Trial Exam-
iner granted the notions. During the course of the hearing the Trial
Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on objections
to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings
of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On November 21, 1939, oral argument was had before the Board
in Washington, D. C. The E. B. A., represented by one of its mem-
bers, and the Company, the I. A. M., and the United, represented
by counsel, participated in the oral argument.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Wilson-Jones Company is a Massachusetts corporation, having its
principal office and place of business at Chicago, Illinois, and having
8 See footnote 1
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manufacturing plants situated in Elizabeth, New Jersey; Chicago,
Illinois; San Francisco, California; and either Kansas City, Kansas,
or Kansas City, Missouri. The present proceeding involves only
the plants at Elizabeth and Chicago. The company is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of loose-leaf, file and station-
ery equipment, indices, record-keeping devices, and other general office
supplies. Approximately 70 per cent by value of paper, press and
binder board, leather, imitation leather, steel, brass, fabrics, and other
materials, aggregating in value approximately $245,000, purchased
for use in manufacture at the Elizabeth plant for the first six months
of 1939, were shipped to the Elizabeth plant from outside the State
of New Jersey and about 75 per cent by value of finished products,
valued at approximately $485,000, were shipped during the same
period from the plant to points outside the State of New Jersey.
During the same period about 95 per cent of the raw materials pur-
chased for use in manufacture at the Chicago plant, aggregating in
value approximately $460,000, were shipped to the plant from outside
the State of Illinois and approximately 75 per cent of the finished
products, valued at approximately $1,200,000, were shipped in that
period out of the State from the plant. In the regular course of
business raw materials aggregating approximately $10,000 and fin-
ished products aggregating approximately $130,000, were transported
between the Elizabeth and Chicago plants during this period. The
Company sells its finished products to wholesalers located through-
out the United States and employs 50 salesmen who visit customers
throughout the United States.
The Company normally employs approximately 350 employees at
the Elizabeth plant and approximately 850 employees at its Chicago
plant.
The Company concedes that it is engaged in interstate commerce,
within the meaning of the Act. 4
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Employees Benevolent Association of Elizabeth, N. J., Inc., is an
unaffiliated labor organization, incorporated under the laws of the
State of New Jersey, admitting to its membership all persons em-
ployed in the Elizabeth plant of the Company for a period of six
weeks, excluding salaried employees, employees "such as company
executives and foremen," and employees engaged strictly in a super-
visory capacity.
International Association of Machinists, Lodge 315, is a local of
International Association of Machinists, a labor organization affiliated
.The above facts relative to the business of the Company at its Chicago and Elizabeth
plants were stipulated to by the Company and counsel for the Board.
WILSON-JONES COMPANY 947
with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership
tool and die makers , machinists , maintenance machinists , helpers, and
apprentices employed in the Elizabeth plant.
Elizabeth Typographical Union, No. 150 , is a local of International
Typographical Union, a labor organization affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor. It admits to membership typesetters em-
ployed in the Elizabeth plant, including the foreman of the printing
department.
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North
America is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, admitting to its membership printing pressmen , assist-
ants, paper cutters, and stock handlers employed in the Elizabeth
plant.
United Loose Leaf and Blank Book Workers , Local Industrial
Union, No. 148, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations . It admits to membership production
and maintenance employees in all of the Company 's plants.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In 1936 the Typographical Union and the Pressmen's Union un-
successfully attempted to organize employees at the Elizabeth plant.
This was the first attempt to organize these employees. In January
1937, following this effort , the I . A. Al. organized the plant tool and
die makers , machinists , maintenance machinists , helpers and appren-
tices, and claims to represent a majority of such employees at all times
since then . During the early part of 1937 representatives of the
I. A. M. acted in conjunction with a committee created by various
American Federation of Labor unions to organize other employees in
the plant. About May 1937 the I. A. M. submitted a proposed agree-
ment to the Company covering tool and die makers and machinists in
the plant. In July 1937 the I. A. M. obtained recognition as the
bargaining representative of its members in the Elizabeth plant and
further obtained an oral understanding, but not an agreement, that
the Company would adhere at its Elizabeth plant to the same terms
for I . A. M. members as were stated in an outstanding contract
between the Company and District No. 8, of the International Asso-
ciation of Machinists , relating to wages, hours of service , and other
working conditions of tool and die makers , machinists , apprentices,
and machine hands in the Chicago plant of the Company. This
Chicago contract was to continue in force until April 30, 1938, and
thereafter, unless terminated by either party thereto "desiring a
change" upon 30 days' notice to the other. There is no showing that
such notice ever was given by either party.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In March 1937 the United organized a majority of the production
and maintenance employees in the Chicago plant, but was unsuccessful
in a campaign to organize employees in the same classifications at the
Elizabeth plant. In February 1938 it made another attempt to or-
ganize employees at the Elizabeth plant and succeeded in enrolling
many as members. At that time it had as members, and was desig-
nated as exclusive bargaining representative, by a majority of the
employees of both plants. Previously, on May 1, 1937, the Company
and the United, in connection with the settlement of a strike at the
Chicago plant, had made a contract in which the company recognized
the United as bargaining representative of its members and which
provided for wages, hours of service, and other working conditions of
employees at the Chicago plant. By its terms the contract was to
remain in effect for one year and could be renewed by mutual agree-
ment of the parties. Although the Elizabeth plant was not covered
by the contract, the Company observed the provisions of the contract
at that plant in so far as they related to wages and hours of service.
On May 1, 1938, the Company and the United entered into another
contract in which the Company recognized the United as exclusive
bargaining agency for all the Company's employees at the Elizabeth
and Chicago plants. It is not entirely clear whether recognition was
also extended with respect to employees at the plants of the Com-
pany in San Francisco and Kansas City. The contract contains a
provision that "one document shall cover both the Elizabeth and
Chicago plants of the Company." The Company and the United
contend that the employees at Elizabeth whom the I. A. M. here
claim to represent were covered by this contract, and by the earlier
contract with the United, above-mentioned, certain of the terms of
which were more favorable to tool and die makers and machinists than
those of the 1937 contract between the Company and District No.
8, of the International Association of Machinists. By its terms the
1938 contract of the Company and the United was to remain in
effect for a period of one year and thereafter from year to year
unless modified by mutual agreement. Either party at the end of any
contract year could terminate or request modification of the contract
by giving 30 days' written notice to the other party prior to the end
of the contract year. On May 1, 1939, after the filing of the peti-
tions herein by the E. B. A. and by the I. A. M., the Company and
the United entered into a third contract regarding wages, hours of
service, and other working conditions of all the Company's "factory
employees." In it the Company recognized the United as the exclu-
sive bargaining agency for all such "factory employees." Appar-
ently, it was the intent of the parties to include in this contract
employees at all plants of the Company, particularly the Elizabeth
WILSON-JONES COMPANY 949
and Chicago plants. Employees of the Elizabeth plant were rep-
resented in the negotiations carried on in Chicago by the United with
the Company leading to both the 1938 and the 1939 contracts. None
of the parties herein denies the claim of the United that it rep-
resented a majority of the employees in both plants at the time the
1938 and 1939 contracts were signed, and we find that it did represent
such a majority.
The E. B. A. was incorporated and began organizing employees
in the Elizabeth plant in May 1938. Several times in 1938 and 1939
the E. B. A. requested the Company to recognize that organization as
the sole bargaining agency for the production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Elizabeth plant. As mentioned below, the E. B. A.
claims to represent all such employees except tool and die makers,
machinists , and machinists ' helpers. Sometime prior to May 1, 1939,
as a basis for collective bargaining , a collective contract was sub-
mitted by it to the Company covering those employees. The Com-
pany refused to recognize and bargain collectively with the E. B. A.,
on the ground that it was precluded from so doing by its outstanding
contract with the United. It stated that it would not consider enter-
ing into any contract with the E. B. A. pending a determination by
the Board of the exclusive bargaining agency of the employees
whom the E. B. A. sought to represent.
In January 1939 the I. A. M. submitted to the Company a closed-
shop contract covering tool and die makers, machinists, specialists,
helpers , and apprentices . This contract was intended to cover em-
ployees in these classifications at least at the Elizabeth plant, and was
submitted upon request of I. A. M. members working there who
desired a separate agreement for themselves . The Company in-
formed the I. A. M. that it would not recognize the I . A. M. as
bargaining agency for the above employees at Elizabeth unless that
organization was certified as such agency by the Board.
In January or February 1939 the Typographical Union and the
Pressmen 's Union requested the Company to recognize them as bar-
gaining representatives of their members employed in the Elizabeth
plant. The Company refused this request, stating that the contract
between the Company and the United then in effect precluded it
from doing so.
Inasmuch as the 1937 contract between the Company and the
United terminated prior to the filing of the petitions in the instant
proceeding , it constitutes no bar to an investigation and determina-
tion of the question concerning representation of employees of the
Company. The 1938 contract between the Company and the United
terminated on April 30, 1939. The petitions of the E. B. A. and of
the I. A. M. were filed on January 31, 1939, and February 11, 1939,
253032-41-vol. 21--61
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respectively. Thus these petitions were filed prior to the date on
which notice of termination could be given by the parties under the
provision therefor, above mentioned, in the contract. Moreover the
1938 contract in fact has since terminated. It, therefore, is no barb
Nor does the exclusive bargaining contract of May 1, 1939, between
the Company and the United constitute a bar to proceedings on the
petitions of the E. B. A. and the I. A. M., for it was entered into
subsequent to the filing of the petitions of these organizations.6
Moreover, the contract was entered into after all the other contending
labor organizations had sought recognition from the Company and
at a time when the Company had knowledge of the claims of the
rival organizations. It was not claimed by any party that the 1939
contract constituted a bar to the proceeding.
We find that questions have arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
Iv. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING
REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE
We find that the questions concerning representation which have
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
v. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The United claims that the appropriate unit is one composed of all
production and maintenance employees in all of the Company's
plants, excluding executives, foremen, supervisors, and office clerical
help, or, in the alternative, all such employees in the Elizabeth and
Chicago plants of the Company.
The I. A. M. claims as an appropriate bargaining unit tool and
die makers, machinists, maintenance machinists, helpers, and appren-
tices in the Elizabeth plant, but excluding die setters.
The E. B. A. contends that all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Elizabeth plant, including printing-department em-
ployees, but excluding tool and die makers, machinists, machinists'
helpers, clerical employees, and supervisors with authority to hire
and discharge or who are on salary, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
5 Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines and Amalgamated Association of Street , Electric
Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America ; Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines and
Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, 9 N. L. R B 557, p 570 and cases there cited.
°Matter of Wickwire Spencer Steel Company and Federated Industrial Union, 18
N L. R B. 372
WILSON-JONES COMPANY 951
The Typographical Union and the Pressmen's Union contend that
all typesetters in the Elizabeth plant under the jurisdiction of Inter-
national Typographical Union, including the foreman of the print-
ing department, as well as printing pressmen, assistants, paper cut-
ters, and stock handlers under the jurisdiction of the Pressmen's
Union comprise an appropriate bargaining unit. However, both or-
ganizations state they have no objection to two units being found
proper, one composed of the employees under the jurisdiction of the
Typographical Union and the other of the employees under the
jurisdiction of the Pressmen's Union.
Although the Company declares that its position in the matter is
entirely neutral, it also states that it does not consider the units
sought by the I. A. M. and the Typographical Union and Pressmen's
Union as appropriate for collective bargaining.
In support of their contentions with respect to the appropriate
unit or units, the various parties introduced evidence concerning the
type of work performed by and the relationship between different
classes of employees especially in the Elizabeth plant, the integration
of the various departments in that plant, and the relationship with
respect to operations and labor policies between the Elizabeth and the
Chicago plants. Evidence was also adduced by the various labor
organizations to show representation in the respective units claimed
by them.
The United contends, as stated above, that the appropriate bargain-
ing unit consists of, production and maintenance employees in all
four of the Company's pants, excluding executives, foremen, super-
visors, and office clerical help, or, in the alternative, all such em-
ployees in the Elizabeth and Chicago plants of the Company. The
only plants involved in the present proceeding are the Elizabeth and
Chicago plants. No testimony was adduced with respect to the oper-
ations or labor relations at the other plants. The past history of
collective bargaining in the Elizabeth and Chicago plants and the
extent of organization in these plants establish, with certain modifica-
tions hereinafter noted, the appropriateness of a single industrial
bargaining unit embracing all employees at both plants. A majority
of the employees of both plants are organized, and since February
1938 have been organized, into a single local. As stated above, the
wages and hours provisions of the 1937 contract between the Com-
pany and the United relating to the Chicago plant were given effect
at the Elizabeth plant, and employees of both plants were repre-
sented in the negotiations leading to, and were covered by, the 1938
contract between the Company and the United. In this contract the
United; as above mentioned, was recognized as the sole bargaining.
representative of all the Company's employees at both plants. At the
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time the 1938 contract was made and ever since the United repre-
sented a majority of all employees at both plants. Accordingly, we
are of the opinion that a single industrial unit composed of all em-
ployees at both the Elizabeth and Chicago plants, save for modifica-
tions hereinafter noted, could constitute an appropriate collective
bargaining unit. Mr. Smith concurs in this finding in his separate
opinion. Mr. Leiserson dissents from it in his separate opinion.
The contention of the United as to specific classifications of employees
which it claims properly should be included and excluded from such
a unit finds support in the collective bargaining history mentioned
and comports with decisions of the Board. We acquiesce in this
definition of the appropriate industrial unit for the two plants.
On May 29, 1939, in Matter of Wilson-Jones Company and Metal
Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers International Union, Local
No. 6; Matter of Wilson-Jones Company and International Associa-
tion of Machinists, District No. 8,' a representation proceeding, we
found that tool and die makers and maintenance machinists employed
in the Chicago plant of the Company constituted a unit appropriate
for collective bargaining and we certified International Association
of Machinists, District No. 8, as the exclusive representative of such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. On the basis of
our certification in that proceeding these employees are excluded from
the industrial unit we have found could be appropriate.
Although, as above stated, the Typographical Union and the Press-
men's Union filed a joint petition for certification as representatives
of employees in the Elizabeth plant under the jurisdiction of both
organizations in a single unit, they have no objection to the estab-
lishment of a separate craft unit for employees under the jurisdiction
of the Typographical Union and one for employees under the juris-
diction of the Pressmen's Union. Such employees have traditionally
organized as separate crafts. We, therefore, are of the opinion that
their claim to representation of employees at the Elizabeth plant
should be treated as involving two respective craft units, and shall
so consider their claim."
It appears from the record that the employees at the Elizabeth
plant whom the I. A. M., the Typographical Union, and the Press-
men's Union, respectively, claim to represent could properly constitute
separate appropriate craft bargaining units. All members of the
Board concur in this, although as to the appropriateness of units
comprising the employees represented by the Typographical Union
712 N. L. R. B. 1351.
See Matter of Chicago Malleable Castings Company and International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers , Local No. 399 and International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers,
Local No. 7, 16 N. L R B. 15.
WILSON-JONES COMPANY 953
and the Pressmen's Union, respectively, Mr. Smith concurs solely on
the special ground set forth in his separate opinion. It also appears
that the respective employees at the Elizabeth plant claimed to be
represented by each of these unions could form part of the single
larger industrial unit covering two plants which we have found could
be appropriate. Mr. Smith concurs in this, although in respect to
the employees represented by the Typographical Union and those
by the Pressmen's Union, respectively, his concurrence also rests
upon the special ground stated in his separate opinion. Mr. Leiser-
son, as stated in his separate opinion, agrees that each of these groups
of employees could be part of an industrial unit but delimits such
unit as confined to the employees of the single plant at Elizabeth.
Under the circumstances we will be guided by the desires of the em-
ployees themselves as indicated in the elections directed .9 We shall
direct that a separate election be held among the employees whom
each of these unions claims to represent to determine whether they
desire to be represented by such Union, by the United, or by neither.
Upon the results in each such election will depend our determination
of the appropriateness of the employees involved constituting a sep-
arate unit or part of the industrial unit. If a majority in any such
election designates the United as its representative for collective
bargaining, then the employees among whom such election is held
will become part of the two-plant industrial unit. If a majority
in any such election designates the respective union other than the
United as its representative, then the employees among whom such
election is held will constitute a separate craft unit.
Inasmuch as we have found that a single industrial unit composed
of all employees at both the Elizabeth and Chicago plants, with
certain modifications, would constitute an appropriate collective bar-
gaining unit, save as the crafts may be separately established, the
bargaining unit confined to production and maintenance employees
in the Elizabeth plant, only, sought to be established by the E. B. A.,
is in all events not appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. The petition of the E. B. A., therefore, will be dismissed.
vI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
All the labor organizations involved submitted at the hearing
union application, membership, or authorization cards and other evi-
dence in proof of their respective claims of representation. Inas-
much as the unit of employees in which the E. B. A. requests certifi-
cation is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
9Matte> of Globe Machine and Stamping Co. and Metal Potmheis Lillian, Local Vo. 3,
3 N L R B 294, and snbsegnent casev
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it is unnecessary for us to consider the extent of its representation
among employees in such unit.
The United did not file a petition in the instant proceeding and
does not desire that an election be held. Moreover, it has an out-
standing collective contract with the Company granting it exclusive
recognition as bargaining representative of all employees at the Eliz-
abeth and Chicago plants, including employees in the craft units
which the I. A. M., the Typographical Union, and the Pressmen's
Union, respectively, claim to represent. Although it is apparent from
what we have stated above that the mere inclusion,in the contract of
terms covering such craft employees or according the United recog-
nition as their representative did not necessarily bring them within
the industrial unit claimed by the United to be appropriate, we con-
clude that the contract, which is not a closed-shop contract, is valid
as to its recognition and substantive provisions relating to employees
in the industrial unit, excluding employees in these crafts.
Further, I (Chairman Madden) am of the opinion that if, in the
elections which we shall direct, a majority in any of the craft groups
votes to be represented by the United, the Board should find the recog-
nition provision of the contract to be valid and its substantive terms
operative to the extent that it covers such group. If, on the other
hand, a majority in any such craft group votes to be represented by
the respective union other than the United, the contract, while valid
in its recognition and substantive terms, as above indicated, as to the
employees in the industrial unit, excluding such group, should not be
found to be valid in those respects as to such craft group. As stated,
the 1939 contract, with the United was made after the Board assumed
jurisdiction of these proceedings.
In view of the failure of the United to file a petition or request
certification, and in view of its outstanding contract, we shall not
direct that an election be held among the employees in the industrial
unit covering both the Elizabeth and Chicago plants, excluding the
employees at Elizabeth in the three craft groups.
Although the evidence introduced by the craft unions showed sub-
stantial adherence among the employees in the unit each claimed to
represent exclusively, such evidence was admitted only with respect
to the appropriateness of the unit claimed by it. Accordingly, we
feel that elections by secret ballot are necessary to resolve the ques-
tions concerning representation of these employees, and the matter
of the appropriate unit or units.
We are of the opinion that in determining eligibility to vote in
this election, the current pay roll of the Company is most suitable and
will best serve to effectuate the policies of the Act. We 'shall, there-
fore, direct ttiat the employees of the Company eligible to vote in
WILSON-JONES COMPANY 955
the elections shall be employees in the craft groups, above mentioned,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of our Direction of Elections herein, including employees
who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation and employees who were then or have since been tem-
porarily laid off, but excluding employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the represen-
tation of employees of Wilson-Jones Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
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
2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Wilson-Jones Company a separate election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction of Elections under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regu-
lations among employees of the Company in each of the following
groups, respectively :
(1) Among the tool and die makers, machinists, maintenance ma-
chinists, machinists' helpers, and apprentices employed by the Wil-
son-Jones Company, at its Elizabeth plant during the pay-roll period
next preceding the issuance of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during such pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation and employees who were then or have since
been temporarily laid off, but excluding die setters and those em-
ployees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by International Association
of Machinists, Lodge 315, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, or by United Loose Leaf and Blank Book Workers, Local
Industrial Union, No. 148, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither;
(2) Among the typesetters employed by said Company at said
plant during the pay-roll period next preceding the issuance of this
Direction, including the foreman of the printing department, em-
ployees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they
-were ill or on vacation, and employees who were then or have since
been temporarily laid off, but excluding employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire
to be represented by Elizabeth Typographical Union, No. 150, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, or by United Loose Leaf
and Blank Book Workers, Local Industrial Union, No. 148, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes
of collective bargaining, or by neither; and
(3) Among the printing pressmen, assistants, paper cutters, and
stock handlers employed by said Company at said plant during
the pay-roll period next preceding the issuance of this Direction,
including employees who did not work during such pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation and employees who were then
or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding employees who
have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether
they desire to be represented by International Printing Pressmen
and Assistants' Union of North America, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, or by United Loose Leaf and Blank Book
Workers, Local Industrial Union, No. 148, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining,
or by neither.
ORDER
By virtue of 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 2, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certi-
fication of representatives filed by Employees Benevolent Association
of Elizabeth, N. J., Inc. be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, specially concurring :
I am of the opinion that the two-plant industrial unit could be
appropriate, and that a single plant unit confined to the employees
at the Elizabeth plant is inappropriate.
The facts set forth in the opinion of the Board show that the
I. A. M. has had a history of organization and collective bargain-
ing among the plant tool and die makers, machinists, .maintenance
machinists, helpers, and apprentices, at the Elizabeth plant, suf-
WILSON"-JONES COMPANY 957
ficient to warrant, if that is their choice, setting them apart from
the above industrial unit. For this reason I agree that the unit in
which the employees claimed by the I. A. M. are to be included shall
be determined by an election to be held among them.1°
For reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in Matter of Allis-
Chalmers Manufacturing Company - and in Matter of Chicago
Malleable Castings Company'12 I believe there is no justification
for weakening the bargaining strength of the employees as a whole
by permitting the craft groups which the Typographical Union and
the Pressmen's Union claim to represent to split off from the above
industrial unit. These unions had no membership among the em-
ployees of the Elizabeth plant, nor had they notified the Company
that they desired to represent any of these employees prior to the
making of the 1938 contract between the Company and the United.
Moreover, they have never bargained with the Company on behalf
of any Elizabeth employees. Clearly they have established no sub-
stantial history of collective bargaining. However, since the Chair-
man and Mr. Leiserson differ with me with respect to these two
craft groups and are of the opinion that elections in accordance with
the doctrine of the Globe 13 case should be held among them, I concur
with the view of the Chairman as to the character and effect of such
elections.
MR. WILLIAM Al. LEISERSON, concurring in part and dissenting in
part :
I am of the opinion that there are disputes here as to representa-
tion of employees at the Elizabeth plant of the Company in which
the Chicago employees are not involved. I cannot agree with the
finding in the majority opinion that the United represented a ma-
jority of the employees in both plants at the time the 1938 contract
with the United was signed, because the record shows clearly that
the United did not have authorizations from a majority of the
Elizabeth employees. The contracts with the United also purport
to include the tool and die makers and maintenance machinists at
the Chicago plant within their scope, when in fact the Board found
and certified on May 29, 1939, that the I. A. Al. was the duly desig-
nated representative of these employees and that they constituted
10 Cf. Matter of Magnolia Petroleum Company and Oil Workers International Union,
Local No 243, et al , 18 N. L R B 380, and cases there cited
"Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company and International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local 248, 4 N. L R B. 159, 175
L Matter of Chicago Malleable Castings Company and International Union of Opc ating
Enganeeis . Local No 399 and International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local No 7,
16 N L R B 15
13 Matter of Globe Machine and Stamping Co . and Metal Polishers Union, Local No 3,
S N L R B 294, and subsequent cases
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an appropriate bargaining unit separate from the rest of the Chicago
employees 14
In view of this finding and certification, it is clear that the tool and
die makers and maintenance machinists at Elizabeth are similarly
entitled to vote as to whether they desire representation by the
I. A. M. in a separate unit. Since the United was not authorized
by a majority of the Elizabeth employees to represent all of them,
the typesetters and printing pressmen, as well as the machinists,
are entitled to vote whether they desire representation in separate
units or whether they want to be included and represented in the
larger plant unit.
1112 N. L. R. B. 1351.