Modern Plating Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1150 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations
Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their organizational activ-
ities, engage in surveillance of their meetings, or threaten to close down our
mining operations if they join or assist a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Mine Workers of America,
District No . 28, or any other labor organization , by laying off, discharging, or
otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment of employees who join or engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid of
protection.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form , join, or
assist the above -named or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted
activities for their mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all of
such activities.
WE WILL offer Ray Hutchinson and Ledford Osborne immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges of employment , and make each
of them whole for any loss of wages and other emoluments he may have suffered
by reason of our discrimination against him.
WE WILL also make whole Leo Bennett, Joseph H . Barton , Charles R . Dixon,
and Ferrell Lester for any loss of wages and other emoluments each of them may
have suffered by reason of our discrimination against him to the date on which
he declined to accept reemployment by us.
All our employees are free to become or remain or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of the above -named or any other labor organization.
DOVE COAL COMPANY,
LARK COAL COMPANY,
Employers.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative )- ( Title)
NoTE-We will notify the above -named employees presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States , if any, of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Military Training and
Service Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date ' of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor,
707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland , Telephone No. 752-8460 , Extension
2100 , if they have any question concerning this . notice or compliance with its
provisions. •
Modern Plating Corporation and Lodge 1096, International
Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-6316.
January 19, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 16, 1964, Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
150 NLRB No. 115.
MODERN PLATING CORPORATION 1151
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that , it-cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions,
with a supporting brief, to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Brown and Jenkins].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent,
Modern Plating Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the -Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
'In support of his finding that the Respondent violated Section '8(a) (1) by conditioning
its consideration of a pay raise on the employees abandoning union . activity, the Trial
Examiner cited N.L.R B. v. Erchango Parts Company, 375 U.S. 405. We agree that the
case is applicable but do not adopt the Trial Examiner ' s broad interpretation of the
Court's holding.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
In this proceeding , under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (herein called the Act), the complaint' alleges that Respondent , by inter-
rogating its employees concerning their union membership and activities; by offering
to consider granting a wage increase on condition that they cease-such concerted activ-
ities; by granting wage increases to induce them to cease such activities, and by
threatening the discontinuance of overtime work if they designated a union as their
collective-bargaining representative , interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated
Section 8(a) (1) thereof.
Respondent answered , denying the commission of unfair labor practices and a hear-
ing on the issues was held before Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg at Freeport,
Illinois, on July 22, 1964, at which all parties were represented, afforded an oppor-
tunity to adduce evidence ,, cross-examine witnesses, and argue upon the facts and the
law. Briefs thereafter filed by the General Counsel and counsel for Respondent have
been considered.
For the reasons hereinafter set forth in detail , I find that Respondent interfered
with, restrained , and coerced its employees as alleged in the complaint and thereby
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
i Issued June 4, 1964, on a charge filed March '30, 1964.
775-692-65-vol. 150-74
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Based upon-the entire ,record in this case and from my observation of,the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent , an Illinois corporation , is engaged at Freeport , Illinois, in the business
of electroplating metals. It admits that it annually purchases and imports into the
State of Illinois goods , and materials valued at more than $ 150,000. It also admits,
and I'find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within .the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Charging Party (herein called the Union ) is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The allegations of interference , restraint , and coercion herein are based upon three
incidents in March and early April 1964.2
A. The meeting with President Servatius •
1. The facts
During the last week in February and first week in March, Robert Miller , a business
representative of the Union , met with employees of Respondent and several of them
signed application cards. Some began 'to wear union buttons in the plant.
On March 9, several employees in the polishing room decided to approach Richard
Servatius, Respondent 's president , about a wage increase. They consulted their fore-
man, who advised them to talk first with Plant Manager Stearns and to send a dele-
gation to the president 's office rather than go en masse . They did as advised and a
group consisting of Frank Thruman, Charles Eichmeier , Charles Nicklaus, James
Thruman , Robert -Parker, and Calvin Thompson went to Servatius '" office. Charles
Nicklaus, acting as spokesman , asked Servatius whether it was true that his office was
always open and that the men were free to come in and discuss matters with 'him:
Servatius agreed that it was and Nicklaus said that the men had come in to ask for
"a dime" raise . Servatius then asked, according to Nicklaus , whether the men were
speaking for themselves or whether they were asking "for a union raise," that is, for
the whole plant. Nicklaus said he referred to the whole plant..
Servatius answered that he-meaning Respondent-could not afford it because he
"had bills" and was trying to get a new plant which would mean a lot of new bills
coming up but he pointed out that the men had "the best insurance in Freeport." The
men stated that they , too, had bills and Thompson remarked that it was necessary for
him to hold two jobs to make ends meet. Thompson was wearing a union button and
Servatius asked him what it was and whether he was in the Union, Thompson ,said he
was not. There was some further general talk 3 and Servatius then asked ,' according
to Frank Thruman whether, if a raise were considered , "would this union crap lie
dropped9" 4 There is no evidence-except that of Servatius , discussed below'-that
any of the employees answered this question but Servatius then said , according to
Nicklaus , that he would think it over and that the men could come back in 2 -or 3
days and they would discuss it further.
Servatius ' version of the interview differed, in several respects , from that of the
employees . According to Servatius, when he saw the union buttons he asked the
men whom they were representing and they said only themselves . He also testified
that, when the men asked for a raise , they coupled the request with the statement that
"this union talk would probably be stopped" if they were granted the increase. Fur-
thermore , according to Servatius , he told" the men at once that Respondent had been
3 All dates herein are 1964.
3 The account of this meeting , Insofar as It is not expressly attributed to the testimony
of any specific person ,- is a synthesis of undisputed testimony by Frank Thruman , Charles
Nicklaus , Calvin Thompson , and Richard Servatius
A Nicklaus testified that Servatius asked whether if a raise were considered, the men
would consider "dropping this mess that was going around here " Servatius , on cross-
examination , reconstructed his question as asking whether "that union garbage" would
stop. On the basis of this admission and the testimony of Nicklaus and Thruman, I
find that Servatius ' question was couched in language as testified by Thruman
MODERN PLATING CORPORATION 1153
planning to give a 5-cent raise - to everyone who hadn 't had one in the last 10 months
but that he did not think it possible to give a 10-cent across-the -board increase. Serv-
atius, also testified that the question of a rate raise had been under consideration among
Respondent 's officials since the previous October or November and he stated that, in
addition to occasional "merit" raises, blanket increases of 5 cents had been granted in
1956 ,1957, 1959, and 1962. '
A day or two following the interview , Servatius stopped at Nicklaus ' work station
and told him that there would be a 5-cent raise for all who had not had a raise within
the past 10 months. About 2 weeks later such a raise was put into effect beginning
with the workweek March 8 to 14.5
2. Conclusions
The complaint alleges that, at this interview, Servatius improperly interrogated the
employees concerning their union membership and that he offered, promised, and
granted the employees wage increases conditioned upon their refraining from union
activities, or to induce them to do so.
All three employee witnesses testified that Servatius, referring to the buttons some
of the men were wearing, asked whether they belonged to the Union. Servatius admit-
ted that he asked them what the buttons were and whom the men were representing.
I credit the employees' testimony and find that Servatius questioned them concerning
their membership in the Union. -
Since there was no valid reason for Servatius to inquire concerning the union mem-
bership or activities of Respondent's employees, his interrogation, coupled as it was
with a conditional promise to consider a wage increase if the "union crap"- were
dropped, was a clear indication of his disapproval of their membership and interfered
with their exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 and violated Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Acts
The principal factual issue concerning the interview is whether it was Servatius
who put the question to the employees whether, if a raise were considered, "would this
union crap be dropped" or whether Nicklaus, asking for a raise, volunteered that, if it
were granted, "this union talk would probably be stopped."
Robert Miller, the Union's representative, testified that about half the cards, 15 or
20, were signed before the raise was granted-about March 11. It may reasonably be
presumed that at least a dozen had been signed prior to the interview.with Servatius.
The evidence concerning the manner in which that interview originated would not
indicate that the employees involved were in close touch with the organizing cam-
paign or that they could control its conduct. Under these circumstances, it appears
unlikely that they could have-or would have-proposed that union activities would
cease if the requested raise were granted. On the contrary, the Employer, having
parried the request for a raise with an indication that it might be considered, might
well make such counterproposal as a riposte. Based upon the testimony of Frank
Thruman, Charles Nicklaus, and Richard Servatius, and upon their demeanor while
testifying, I find that the exchange occurred as the employees testified and that Serv-
atius offered to consider granting a wage increase if the men would cease their union
activities.
In its recent decision in N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company., 375 U.S. 405, the
Supreme Court made it clear that any benefit conferred by an -employer against'a
background of union organizing activity-even without proof of antiunion motiva-
tion-nevertheless constitutes interference with its employees rights of self-organiza-
tion and violates Section 8(a)(1). A fortiori, therefore, an employer's offer of bene-
fit to the employees expressly conditioned upon their abandonment of union activities
constitutes interference violative of that section.
The wage increase of 5 cents and the one'of 10 cents granted those employees who
had not had a raise during the past 10 months was,'according to'Servatius, the result
of a study commenced some months previously and was similar to raises granted in
earlier years. These vague statements are insufficient to justify Respondent's conduct:
it is reasonable to assume that any multiemployer enterprise is constantly engaged in
some sort of study, formal or informal, concerning its wage rates and there is no
evidence that Respondent's review of its -wage structure called for a raise at this par-
s It was stipulated that 52-men received 5-cent raises and that 1 man received a
10-cent raise.
6 Blue Flash Empress, Inc., 109 NLRB 591 ;:Burke Golf, Equipment Corp., 127 NLRB
241, set aside 284 F. 2d 943 (C.A. 6).
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ticular time.? Nor does the mere statement that wage- increases had been granted in
1956, 1957, 1959, and 1962 establish a pattern which would, in itself, have dictated an
increase at this particular time. Any implication in Servatius' testimony that the
raises were the result of such factors is rejected.8 I find that Respondent granted the
increases herein to persuade the employees to abandon'their self-organizational activ-
ities and that it constituted interference with the employees' rights in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
B. The statements of Plani Manager Stearns
Sheldon Shenbereger testified that one evening "around" the first week in March
he was receiving his instructions for that night's work from Plant Superintendent
Clifford Stearns when-Stearns asked him "how many guys had signed up for the
Union." Shenberger said "a couple" and Steams then said that a union had been "in
there before" and that the men would be better-off if they tore up the cards and for-
got about the Union. Steams did not testify and I find that he made the statements
testified to by Shenberger. '
Like the questioning by Servatius discussed above, Steams' inquiry concerning the
employees' membership in the Union was improper (a) because there were no circum-
stances making it necessary or appropriate at that time for Respondent to seek, this
information concerning the employees' self-organizing activities 9 and (b) his other
statements, contemporaneously made and hereinafter found to be coercive, served to
cloak the interrogation with an air of coercion. .
Steams' statement the men would be "better off if they would tear up the cards
and forget about the union," although somewhat vague in its terms, was quite clear
in its general import. It could not be interpreted otherwise than as a threat designed
to restrain the employees in the exercise of their guaranteed right of self-organization.
I find that both of these statements, made by the plant superintendent to one or-more
employees, constituted violations by Respondent of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
C. The statements of Foreman Loring -
1. Facts
On April 1 several employees and ex-employees of Respondent arranged a party at
the V.F.W. clubhouse in Rockford as an expression of regard for a fellow employee
who had retired after about 25 years of service. Among those present were Alvin
Leroy Loring, one of Respondent's foremen, Ronald LeBaron, a former employee,
and about 10 of Respondent's employees, including Frank Thruman and Charles
Eichmeier.
Loring, LeBaron, Thruman, and Eichmeier were in a group when the talk turned
to the subject of unions. Loring asked LeBaron whether he was "getting anything" out
of the organizing campaign and LeBaron said he was simply helping his local. Loring,
replied, according to LeBaron's testimony, that he did not know how the Union could
do the men any good as, with overtime, they were making as much as anyone in town
and that, if the Union came in, they would probably get "only a 10-cent raise" which
would go for union dues. Loring followed this, according to both LeBaron and Thru-
man, with the statement that, if the Union got in, Respondent would reduce the
employees' hours by doing away with overtime and would employ a third shift.
Loring admitted having engaged in the conversation and that he had said that there
was no need for a union at Respondent's plant because there had been one there
before and it had not "worked out." He also admitted having discussed overtime,
saying that it would be discontinued and that, if necessary to get out the work, a third
shift would be instituted. He testified, however, that this statement was based upon
a rumor that the Union would get Respondent's employees up to $3 an hour and that
the Company could not afford, upon that rate, to pay overtime. LeBaron and Thru-
man denied that there had been any discussion of wage rates at Respondent's plant.
2. Finding and conclusions
It is to be noted that the interview with Servatius occurred on March 9; that Steams'
statement to Shenberger occurred about the same time; that Servatius informed Nick=
laus a day or two afterward that the raises would be granted and that they were put
7 It was conceded by Respondent that this particular review was not completed until a
date "on or after March 4."
8 Compare: Jackson Tile Manufacturing Company, 122 NLRB 764.
9 Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591.
MODERN PLATING' CORPORATION 1155
into effect 2 or 3 weeks later, or close to the end of March . The party at the V.F.W.
hall on April 1 was, therefore , closely connected in time with Respondent 's campaign
to thwart the Union 's organizational drive and it appears, from Loring 's admitted
statements , that he openly grasped the opportunity to make his contribution to that
effort . LeBaron and Thruman credibly testified that Loring made the flat statement
that if the Union got in , overtime would be discontinued and they categorically denied
that he linked it with any union wage goal . I find that Loring made this statement:
that it was not an expression of opinion but constituted a threat of reprisal to inter-
fere with and restrain the employees in their self-organizational activities and that it
constituted an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent found to constitute unfair labor practices as set forth
in-,section III, occurring in connection with Respondent's operations described in
section I , have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain conduct interfering with,
restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in the Act
and constituting unfair labor practices affecting commerce , I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom , and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate
the policies 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. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By offering, on March 9 , 1964, to consider granting its employees a wage increase
on condition that they cease their self-organizational activities ; by thereafter granting
its employees a wage increase to induce them to cease such activities ; by advising its
employees , on or about March 9, 1964, to tear up their applications to, and forget
about, the Union ; by threatening , on April 1 , 1964, to diminish its employees'
compensation by eliminating overtime if their self-organizational efforts were suc-
cessful , Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of rights guarantees by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and pur-
suant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that Respondent , Modem Plating
Corporation , its officers , agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union membership ; offering to
consider granting wage increases on condition that its employees cease their self-
organizational activities or activities in support or behalf of the Union ; granting wage
increases to induce its employees to cease such support or activities : provided, how-
ever , that nothing in this Recommended Order shall be construed as authorizing or
requiring Respondent to vary or abandon any economic benefit or any term or condi-
tion of employment which it has heretofore established; 10 advising its employees to
"tear up their cards" or otherwise cease their self-organizational activities or threat-
ening that overtime work would be discontinued if the employees exercise their right
of self-organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , as guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment in conformity with Section 8(a) (3 )
of the Act.
10 See : Emchange Parts Company, 131 NLRB 808, 807, enforcement directed , 375 U. S. 405.
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Post at its premises in Freeport, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted,by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60,con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including places where notices to its
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.12
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order". , ,
12 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES .
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their membership in, or
activities on behalf of, Lodge 1096 , International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. '
WE WILL NOT offer to consider granting a wage increase on condition that our
employees withdraw their support or cease their activities on behalf of said labor
organization or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT grant wage increases to induce our employees to withdraw their
support or cease their activities on behalf of said labor organization or any other
labor organization ; provided , however, that nothing in this notice, or the posting
thereof, shall be construed as authorizing or requiring us to vary or abandon any
wage rate or term or condition of employment heretofore established.
WE WILL NOT advise our employees to "tear up" their application cards to or
cease their support of the said labor organization , or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discontinue overtime work if our employees exercise
their right to self-organization or to join the said labor organization , or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or. assist Lodge 1096, International-Association of Machin-
ists, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such
activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or to remain members of Lodge 1096 , Inter-
national Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or to
refrain from such membership , except to the extent that this right may be affected by
an agreement authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
MODERN PLATING CORPORATION,
. Employer.
Dated------------------- By------------------------------ _------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
KINGSPORT PRESS, INC., PETITIONER 1157
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois,
Telephone 828-7572, if they have questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Kingsport Press, Inc., Petitioner and International Typographi-
cal Union and Local 940, International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-RM-391. January 19, 1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Scott P. Watson. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter,
the Employer and the Unions involved herein filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
The petition named International Typographical Union and its
Local 940, referred to here collectively as Typographers, as the rep-
resentative of the unit in which an election is sought. Typographers
was certified for this unit in 1940. Local 175, Electrotypers Union,
International Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, referred to here as Electrotypers, was permitted to inter-
vene on the basis of its claim that certain employees whom the
Employer would include in its proposed unit properly belong in a
unit which it presently represents.
3. The Employer questions the majority status of Typographers
on the ground that it has been engaged in an economic strike for
more than a year and that substantially all the strikers have been
permanently replaced.
The Unions seek dismissal of the petition on the ground that the
Employer does not now refuse to recognize Typographers as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the unit petitioned for.
The Board uniformly processes a petition filed by an employer if
the statutory requirements for filing such a petition are met and, as
here, there is no contract or certification bar. The requirements are
a claim of representative status in the unit covered by the petition,
and rejection or questioning by the employer of the union's claim to
150 NLRB No. 113.