20th Century Press

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 292 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
20TH CENTURY PRESS' and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRA-
PHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 45, C.I.O., Petitioner.
Case No. 19 -RC-1375. December 4, 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 William G.
Nowell, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.2
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 employees of the Employer.3
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
The Intervenor contends, contrary to the Petitioner and the
Employer, that its contract of February 6, 1952, with the
Tacoma Industrial Conference Board, covering lithographic
and letterpress employees of all members of the Conference
Board, constitutes a bar to the instant petition, filed on
August 19, 1953. At the time of execution of that agreement,
the Conference Board was authorized to execute collective-
bargaining agreements for the Employer . That agreement
provides that it "shall be in effect from February 1, 1952
until July 31, 1953, provided that it shall be subject to change
or termination sixty (60) days after the date on which written
notice is given by either party to the other party of any
desire to change or terminate this agreement , provided that
the earliest date of change or termination of this agreement
shall not be before August 1, 1953." On June 1, 1953, the
Intervenor sent the Conference Board a letter requesting
negotiations for changes in its existing agreement, with a
proposed contract to be effective from August 1, 1953, to
July 31, 1954, in which a number of changes from the former
agreement were set forth. It is clear that by this letter Inter-
venor gave notice of its desire to terminate the existing
agreement on its earliest expiration date, August 1, 1953.
As a new agreement had not been reached before the petition
in this case was filed , there was no contract in existence
at the time the petition was filed and there is no contract bar.
'The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 At the close of the hearing the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition because the unit
requested is inappropriate, because theEmployer's withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining
was not timely, and because there was a contract bar The hearing officer referred the Inter-
venor's motion to the Board. For reasons contained in the decision below, the motion is denied.
3Tacoma Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 44, International Printing Press-
men and Assistants Union of North America, AFL, intervened at the hearing on the basis of
a showing of interest.
107 NLRB No. 84
20TH CENTURY PRESS 293
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all lithographic production
employees employed by the Employer . The Employer agrees
that these employees constitute an appropriate unit, but the
Intervenor contends that the only appropriate unit for these
employees is a multiemployer unit including both lithographic
employees and letterpressmen . As a secondary position, the
Intervenor contends that a unit comprising the Employer's
letterpress and lithographic employees is alone appropriate.
For over 8 years the Employer was a member of the Tacoma
Industrial Conference Board which negotiated collective-
bargaining agreements with the Intervenor for the Employer
and other printing establishments covering their offset
(lithographic ) and letterpress employees . In 1950 , the Board
found appropriate a unit of all cylinder ( letterpress) and
offset ( lithographic ) pressmen and apprentices , cylinder and
offset assistants , platen feeders , and pressmen "foremen"
employed by 8 members of the Tacoma Industrial Conference
Board , including the Employer in the instant case. 4
The bylaws of the Tacoma Industrial Conference Board
provide that any member may resign by notice in writing
delivered at least 30 days prior to the effective date of
resignation and payment of assessments and dues to that
date. In May 1953, the Employer notified the Conference
Board orally that it wished to resign . On July 10 , 1953, the
Employer sent written notice of resignation from the Board
in which it stated : " Consider this letter as cancelling any
authority to represent us in labor negotiations with the various
unions in the graphic arts industry ." On August 4, 1953, the
Conference Board sent a letter to the Intervenor naming the
members whom it was representing in current negotiations.
The name of the Employer was not included . On August 5,
1953, the Intervenor sent the Employer a letter, identical
to that sent the Conference Board on June 1, containing the
new contract proposals.
The Intervenor contends that the Employer did not give
timely notice of withdrawal from the multiemployer group.
We do not agree . Withdrawal in the instant case occurred
after the expiration of the most recent multiemployer agree-
ment. This is precisely the time at which the Board will
permit withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining.5
The Intervenor also contends that the Employer ' s with-
drawal in this case is not unequivocal, but was intended to
apply only to lithographic employees . The evidence discloses
no such restriction upon the Employer ' s withdrawal from the
Association . The Employer ' s letter to the Conference Board
4Pioneer , Incorporated, 90 NLRB 1848.
5 Stamford Wall Paper , Inc., 92 NLRB 1173. The cases cited by the Intervenor in its brief
are not in point . In W. S Ponton of N. J. Inc ., 93 NLRB 924, the Employer attempted to
withdraw from multiemployer bargaining during the contract term Continental Baking
Company, 99 NLRB 777 , does not involve the issue of withdrawal from multiemployer bar-
gaining by an employer . Other cases cited pertain to qualified or partial withdrawal and not
to the timing of withdrawal.
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
canceled all authority of that Board to represent it in negotia-
tions with various graphic arts unions , including the Inter-
venor , which were the only unions with which the Conference
Board had bargained for the Employer . The Employer has
since engaged in no conduct inconsistent with complete with-
drawal . Accordingly , we find that the Employer intended to,
and did , withdraw completely from multiemployer bargaining. 6
The Intervenor further contends that even if a single em-
ployer unit is appropriate , the proposed unit is inappropriate
because of the similar interests , duties, and wages of the
lithographic employees and letterpressmen , the alleged bar-
gaining history for a combined lithographic and letterpress
unit, and because 1 of the 2 lithographic employees is a
supervisor leaving only 1 employee in the proposed unit.
The lithographic employees sought by the Petitioner were
first employed in July 1953 . Prior to that ^ the Employer
engaged in no lithographic operations . There are presently
2 employees in the lithographic department . They perform all
the lithographic duties in the Employer ' s shop and work in
a separate location from other employees in the letterpress,
typography , and bindery departments . There is no interchange
of employees between the lithographic department and other
departments . The employees in the letterpress department,
typography department , and bindery department have been
separately represented in the past on a departmental basis
and the Employer has bargained with the representative of each
department through the Conference Board.? The multiemployer
contracts covering letterpress and lithographic employees in
a single unit were executed , and the Board decision finding
such a unit appropriate 8 was issued , at a time when the Em-
ployer was a member of the multiemployer group, but before
it employed any lithographic employees . There is, therefore,
no bargaining history for the Employer ' s lithographic em-
ployees, with the possible exception of the brief period between
the date of commencement of the Employer ' s lithographic
operations in July 1953 and the expiration of the multiemployer
contract on August 1, 1953.
The Board has frequently held that separate units of litho-
graphic employees in combination shops , such as the Em-
ployer ' s, are appropriate . 9 In Pacific Press , Inc.,10 cited by
the Intervenor in support of its first contention , unique
6Stamford Wall Paper , Inc., supra The cases cited by the Intervenor are distinguishable.
In Pioneer, Inc , supra, the Employer indicated its intention to withdraw only as to some of
its employees in the multiemployer unit. In Carnation Company, 90 NLRB 1808 , the Employer
was still a member of the multiemployer group and indicated its intention to accept a multi-
employer contract unless it contained certain welfare clauses , objectionable to the Employer.
7 The employees in the typography department are represented by the International Typo-
graphical Union. The employees in the bindery department are represented by the Tacoma
Bookbinders Union
8 Pioneer , Inc., supra.
9 The Wilson H. Lee Company, 97 NLRB 1023; Court Square Press, Inc., 92 NLRB 1516
10 66 NLRB 458.
AVCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 295
operating conditions , including interchange among offset press-
men and letterpressmen and lack of segregation of litho-
graphic employees, were relied upon by the Board in depart-
ing from its usual policy of permitting such separate units.
Neither of those factors is present in the instant case, nor
are there any other factors present which would warrant a
departure from that policy here.
Of the 2 employees in the lithographic department, one
Pearson, has more skill and experience than the other and is
paid $20 more per week than the other. Pearson handles all
the plate packing, stripping , and helps operate the press. No
one else in the shop knows as much about lithography as he
does , and he is substantially responsible for the proper
operation of the lithographic department in the performance
of his duties. Pearson has no authority to hire or discharge
employees, to discipline them, or effectively to recommend
such action . The Employer employs 3 typographers, 2 letter-
pressmen , and 2 bindery employees in its other departments.
One employee in each of these departments acts in the same
relation to the other employees in the same department as
does Pearson to the other lithographic employee. In the
Pioneer case ," the parties stipulated that such employees in
the letterpress and lithographic classifications were not
supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We find that
Pearson is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, but
is merely in the position of a highly skilled employee advising
and instructing a less skilled employee working with him. 12
Accordingly, we find appropriate a unit of all lithographic
employees at the Employer's Tacoma, Washington , plant,
excluding all other employees , guards , and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
11 Pioneer , Inc., supra.
12Hodgdon Brothers- Goudy & Stevens , 106 NLRB No . 211; Danner Press of Canton, Inc.,
91 NLRB 239.
AVCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, APPLIANCE AND
ELECTRONICS DIVISION' and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No.
35-RC-938. December 4, 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 John W. Hines,
1 The Employer 's name appears as corrected at the hearing.
107 NLRB No. 75.