Northwestern Photo Engraving Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 28, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1067 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

NORTHWESTERN PHOTO ENGRAVING COMPANY 1067
ucts and of public utility companies. J. Weiss Printers. 92
NLRB 993.
On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the Company's
operations do not meet the Board's jurisdictional standards.
Accordingly, consistent with such standards, the Board has
no alternative but to dismiss the complaint in its entirety,
which we shall do. 13
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
Members Murdock and Rodgers took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
13Chairman Farmer agrees with the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. This is not to be
taken, however, as reaffirming the previously established jurisdictional plan.
IRVING Z. LEE, ANNE E. LEE AND J. J. ERLICH, TRUSTEE,
CO-PARTNERS d/b/a NORTHWESTERN PHOTOENGRAV-
ING COMPANY and WILLARD G. LEPINS, 1 Petitioner and
CHICAGO PHOTOENGRAVERS UNION, LOCAL NO . 5. Case
No. 13-RD-187. August 28, 1953
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 Richard B.
Simon, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
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 Farmer and Members
Styles and Peterson].
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 organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Union moved to dismiss the petition upon the
grounds that (a) a court decree ordering the Employer to
bargain with the Union was entered less than 1 year before the
filing of the decertification petition, (b) unfair labor practice
charges are pending against the Employer, and (c) the Em-
ployer assisted the Petitioner in connection with this proceed-
ing.
IAfter the close of the hearing, the Petitioner died. The employees involved have requested,
however, that the Board proceed with the processing of the petition. In view of the fact that
the individual Petitioner was acting in behalf of these employees, the Union's request that
the petition be dismissed is hereby denied.
106 NLRB No 168.
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On June 21, 1951, the Union was certified as bargaining
representative of the employees involved in this case . There-
after, the Union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging
that the Employer had violated Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5)
of the Act. These charges were settled by the entering of a
court decree , which, inter alia, directed the Employer to
cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union, and, affirmatively, to reinstate canceled group life
and hospitalization insurance benefits , and to post appropriate
notices .' On November 10, 1952, the Regional Director in-
formed the Union that the Employer had complied with the
affirmative requirements of the order and that he was closing
the case.
Meanwhile, the Employer and the Union held bargaining
conferences between August 27, 1952, and November 14, 1952.
On the latter date , they were in complete accord on terms of
a collective - bargaining agreement , except on the issue of
union security. The Union would not sign a contract without
such a clause , nor the Employer with one . No further bar-
gaining sessions were held. However, between November 20,
1952, and February 6, 1953, the parties corresponded about
wage data information which were requested by the Union and
furnished by the Employer.
On May 13, 1953, the Petitioner filed the present petition
to decertify the Union as bargaining representative. On the
following day the Union requested the Employer to resume
bargaining . The Employer refused this request upon the ground
that a valid question of representation was then pending. On
May 20, 1953, the Union filed charges alleging that the Em-
ployer had violated Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act.
After investigation , the Regional Director dismissed the
charges . On appeal, the General Counsel upheld the Regional
Director ' s action.
The Union contends that the certification issued on June 21,
1951, was not effective until the entry of the court decree and
therefore that the certification year, during which no question
of representation can be raised , should commence to run
only from the latter date . Recently, in the Squirrel Brand
case,3 the Board considered the effect to be given to its
bargaining orders .4 The Board held that the only purpose
of the bargaining order is to remedy the antecedent refusal
to bargain and that once this purpose has been achieved the
order has no further effect . The Board majority expressly
refused to ascribe to the bargaining order the effect of a
certification.
2 The complaint in that case , 13-CA- 526, alleged that the Employer had refused to bargain
by unilaterally canceling group life and hospitalization benefits in August 1950, which pre-
dated the certificate , and by unilaterally granting wage increases in January 1952, 7 months
after the issuance of the certificate.
3Squirrel Brand Co , Inc., 104 NLRB 289
4 in Squirrel Brand , the bargaining order was not followed by the entry of a court decree.
This difference does not affect the principle involved
EMPIRE COIL CO., INC. 1069
In the present case, the Regional Director and the General
Counsel found that, in compliance with the court decree, the
Employer bargained in good faith to an impasse . We hold
that the Employer' s obligation under the decree was thereby
discharged . Accordingly, there was no obstacle thereafter to
the raising of a valid question concerning representation,
even though this occurred within a year of the court decree.5
As set forth above, the Union also moved to dismiss the
petition because of the pendency of unfair labor practice
charges against the Employer and because of the alleged
assistance rendered by the Employer to the Petitioner. The
unfair labor practice charges have been dismissed . One of
these charges alleged that the Employer had assisted the
Petitioner in connection with this proceeding . The Regional
Director and the General Counsel found this allegation to be
without merit and dismissed it. Under the holding in the
Times Square Stores case , 6 this disposition is binding upon
the Board . Accordingly, the Union' s motion to dismiss is
hereby denied.
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. All employees' of the Employer at its Chicago , Illinois,
plant, engaged in the photoengraving process, excluding office
and clerical employees , guards , professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5Member Styles, who dissented in the Squirrel Brand case, joins in this decision because
he considers himself bound by the decision of the majority in that case.
6 Times Square Stores Corporation, 79 NLRB 361.
7 This includes Frank Balon, Stanley Burce, John Gorski, Granville Plummer, and Joseph
Ruppert who, we find, contrary to the contention of the Union, are not supervisors as defined
in the Act. None of these employees has the statutory indicia of supervisory authority and
all were permitted to vote without objection in the 1950 election. Their duties have not
been changed since 1950.
EMPIRE COIL CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE
OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYES & MOVING PICTURE
MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE U. S. & CANADA, AFL,
Petitioner
EMPIRE COIL CO., INC. and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BROADCAST ENGINEERS & TECHNICIANS, CIO, Petitioner.
Cases Nos . 8-RC-1939 and 8-RC-1950 . August 28, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
106 NLRB No. 172.