Addressograph-Multigraph Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1973

207 N.L.R.B. 892 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Addressograph-Multigraph Corporation' and Office
and Professional Employees International Union,
Local No. 49, AFL-CIO. Case 8-UC-82
December 14, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On February 22, 1973, Petitioner filed a petition
requesting clarification of the below-described unit
of employees of the Employer in which it was
certified in 1940 by this Agency. On May 1, 2, and 3
and June 12, 13, and 14, 1973, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Charles Z. Adamson for the
purpose of taking testimony with respect to the issues
raised by the petition. All parties appeared and
participated at the hearing. On June 22, 1973, the
Acting Regional Director for Region 8 issued an
order transferring this case to the Board. Thereafter,
the parties filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error.2 They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
The Employer is a Delaware corporation, doing
business in Ohio, other States, and foreign countries.
It is engaged in the production, distribution, and
servicing of copy machines, offset duplicators, data
recording systems, general data writing equipment,
reproduction equipment for the engineering and
architectural fields, photo typesetting equipment,
and business machine and general office supplies.
The Employer operates its business through a
number of divisions, at least one of which is
organized as a separate wholly owned subsidiary
corporation. It has various facilities located in cities
throughout the United States, including a number
located within the greater Cleveland, Ohio, area.
1 As amended at the hearing.
2 Petitioner contends that the failure of the Hearing Officer to require
compliance with the subpoena duces tecum directed to the president of the
Addressograph-Multigraph Corporation was prejudicial error . We find no
merit in this contention . Testimony was given by several other Employer's
witnesses concerning the Employer's labor relations policies and practices at
the various facilities described infra, as well as the organization and
structure of the Employer's business-all this being part of the information
that was sought by the subpena. Petitioner also sought the names , addresses,
and telephone numbers of employees working at the Employer 's three new
operations named in the original petition . As noted, the Employer's
witnesses testified to much of the information sought by the subpena and
In 1940, Petitioner won a consent election held in a
broadly defined unit which included office clerical,
plant clerical, and professional employees then
working in the plant located at 1200 Babbitt Road,
Euclid, Ohio, variously called the Babbitt Road or
the Euclid plant. Petitioner has had an unbroken
history of collective bargaining for those employees
since that date.3 Its most recent contract is for a
period effective from September 22, 1971, to May 3,
1974, and defines the unit thereby covered by job
classifications. It reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
1.1 The Company recognizes the Union as the
exlcusive representative for collective bargaining
... of the employees in the office bargaining unit
of its Squibb, Park Hill, and Euclid, Ohio, office
departments as hereinafter defined .4
2.1 The office bargaining unit is defined as
follows: All office and clerical employees, includ-
ing time study employees, timekeepers, factory
clerical employees, stock chasers, and profession-
al employees other than Engineer (former Code
4-6), Product Designer-Major (former Code 4-8),
Electrical Product Designer-Major (former Code
4-18), Engineering Trainee (former Code 4-19)
[there follows a list of contractual and statutory
exclusions ].
There are approximately 235 employees currently
covered by this contract, all of whom work at the
Babbitt Road location. Petitioner claims, in opposi-
tion to the Employer, that it is entitled to represent,
as part of its unit, an additional 215 employees
working at four newly opened facilities in the
Greater Cleveland area; and it requests that its unit
be clarified accordingly. It bases its claim on a theory
that any of the new facilities within the Greater
Cleveland area fall within the scope of the unit it
represents if, as it contends: (a) some, if not all, of
the functions now performed at these new facilities
were formerly performed at the Babbitt Road
location; and (b) the clerical staffs now employed at
those locations include any classifications of employ-
ees who would clearly be within the bargaining unit
if employed at Babbitt Road. It further asserts that,
as a matter of bargaining practice, the Employer has
in the past extended contract coverage to office
the Petitioner did not press these matter s on cross-examination . The record
fails to reveal the significance of the additional information sought and how
it would affect our conclusions herein. We therefore cannot say that it was
error for the Hearing Officer to refuse to require compliance with the
subpena.
3 Of the 1 ,400 employees currently working at the Euclid plant, the
International Association of Machinists, District 54, represents approxi-
mately 1 ,009 employees in a production and maintenance unit whose work
entails the manufacturing of Addressograph products.
4 The Squibb and Park Hill facilities are no longer in existence.
Operations which were carried on at those sites have since returned to the
Babbitt Road plant.
207 NLRB No. 135
ADDRESSOGRAPH-MULTIGRAPH CORP. 893
clerical employees in any newly established opera-
tions in the area, and that it orally agreed to continue
doing so during the negotiations preceding the
current contract. For the reasons set out below, we
find no warrant for granting Petitioner's clarification
request.
The employees sought in the petition to be
included in the unit through clarification, as explicat-
ed at the hearing, compose the office clerical staffs at
four divisions of the Company known as Tower East
Corporate Headquarters, Data Systems Division,
Graphics Research and Development Center,5 and
Amec, Inc., the last of these having been organized
as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Employer. The
four divisions are part of a larger number of divisions
newly created by the Employer throughout the
country pursuant to an extensive corporate reorgani-
zation plan initiated in 1971, shortly after the
Employer's appointment of a new president and
chief executive officer. The object of the plan was to
convert a highly centralized corporation with diverse
business operations into a decentralized organization
consisting of a pure corporate headquarters office
having a staff function, and various autonomous
operational divisions each having overall responsibil-
ity for one of the many separable profit-producing
business functions of the Employer.6
The record shows that each of the four divisions
described supra is in fact now a completely autono-
mous operation. Each is responsible for establishing
wage or salary compensation and fringe benefits for
its employees. Each sets its own shift hours. Each has
its own supervisory hierarchy. Grievances, questions,
or complaints arising at each facility are handled at
that facility. Each operation has its own payroll.
There is no interchange of employees between any of
the four operations sought by the Petitioner or
between any of them and the Babbitt Road plant.
Particular facts descriptive of the location of each of
the four divisions supra, its structure and functions,
and its relationship to the Babbitt Road operations
are as follows:
1. Data Systems Division. The Employer estab-
lished the Data Systems Division in August 1972. At
the same time, it eliminated the division or depart-
ment located at Babbitt Road which was known as
the Data Products Group, and assigned to the new
division here under discussion a major portion of its
functions and responsibilities.? The functions and
5 Graphics Research and Development Center's establishment as a
separate division 'was begun in 1976, but implementation of those plans was
not finally accomplished until 1971 The Petitioner added the Graphics
R/D Center to its petition for unit clarification during the course of the
hearing. In its brief, Petitioner has requested that the proceeding be
remanded for further evrdentiary,hearings regarding the duties of employees
at the Graphics R/D Center. In light of our disposition of this petition and
the reasons set forth enfra we deny Petitioner's request.
- responsibilities now allocated to the new Data
Systems Division are not, however, confined to those
formerly performed by members of the complement
who worked at Babbitt Road as part of the now
defunct Data Products Group. They now include
overall responsibility for (a) the Data Products
Group formerly located at Cambridge, Massachu-
setts; (b) the operations at Hillside, New Jersey, with
its satellite operation in Guilford, Connecticut,
responsibility for both of which was formerly vested
in the vice president in charge of the Employer's
United States operations, as then structured; (c) the
Holmesville, Ohio, manufacturing plant, responsibili-
ty for which was formerly vested in the vice president
in charge of manufacturing; and (d) the Documentar
Science operation at Santa Ana, California, which
was purchased in June 1972. The latter was added to
the Data Products Group for a 2-month period.
For the 2-month period following its establishment,
the new Data Systems Division was housed at the
Babbitt Road site. It moved, in October 1972, to
temporary facilities in Bedford Heights, Ohio,
pending a further move to permanent quarters in
Solon, Ohio, about 15 miles from the Babbitt Road
facility. The latter move is scheduled for the fall of
1973. The division presently' has an engineering
support unit located at the Babbitt Road plant, but
that support unit also is scheduled to move to the
Solon site when the division's headquarters leaves
Bedford Heights.
There are about 160 employees at the new Data
Systems Division headquarters, 28 of whom are
nonexempt salaried employees,8 who, as the Employ-
er puts it, "are now performing work which, if
performed at the Babbitt Road location, would be
bargaining unit work." These 28 are part of the total
staff of 52 nonexempt salaried employees who
perform the supporting clerical services for the
division's management and administrative personnel.
Petitioner seeks to add 50 of these nonexempt
employees to the unit it currently represents. Al-
though the majority,of the nonexempt employees at
Data Systems headquarters had worked at Babbitt
Road, only three were former bargaining unit
personnel.
2. Amec, Inc. The Employer established Amec as
a wholly owned subsidiary involving the export of its
various products. At the same time, it eliminated: (a)
the International Department at Babbitt Road, and
6 The plan contemplated , however, that fund-raising would remain a
function solely under the control of the corporate headquarters, even where
the new division was structured as a separate profit center.
7 It transferred that part of the Data Products Group's functions and
responsibilities having to do with the VariTyper, into its VanTyper
Division . The petition does not embrace any employees in this new division.
8 As defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) similar departments handling international busi-
ness at scattered locations throughout the country.
The latter were part of divisions separately servicing
the export business activities of four of the Employ-
er's product lines ; viz, the Bruning, VariTyper, Copi-
Duplicator, and the Addressograph. About 28 to 35
percent of the business functions and responsibilities
now handled by Amec had previously been handled
by International Department personnel at Babbitt
Road. The remaining 65 to 72 percent had been
handled at the now eliminated departments at other
facilities and locations.
Amec is housed at a building located 10 miles from
the Babbitt Road plant. It has a total complement of
64, of whom 40 are nonexempt employees. Of these
40, Petitioner seeks the 37 clericals who provide
supporting services for Amec's managerial personnel.
The Employer admits that most of the managerial
employees had formerly worked in the International
Department at Babbitt Road, and that 37 of the 40
nonexempt employees are "performing work which,
if performed at Babbitt Road, would be bargaining
unit work." The Employer also admits that 6 of the
40 nonexempt employees had also formerly worked
in the International Department at Babbitt Road;
and an additional 10 had formerly been employed in
other of the departments at Babbitt Road. The
Employer witnesses testified, however, that these 16
clericals-representing, in any event, a minority of
the total number of this division's employees sought
for the bargaining unit by the Petitioner-were taken
on by Amec only after, pursuant to management
policy statements, each terminated his employment
at Babbitt Road and filed an application with Amec.
Each of such employees was told when hired by
Amec that his prior service with the Employer would
be credited only for purposes of computing vacation
and pension benefits.
3. Graphics Research and Development Center,
hereinafter referred to as Graphics. Unlike the above
division, Graphics is not a "profit center." Plans for
its establishment as a separate division or center were
initiated in November 1970. It was formed with the
object of serving as a support research and develop-
ment group for all divisions of the Employer in the
United States. Graphics supplanted and took over
functions previously performed by: (a) the Advance
Development Department which, until September
1970, was housed at the Babbitt Road plant; and (b)
a research center which had been previously located
at Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Graphics is presently located at a facility on South
Miles Road, a location at which the Advanced
Development Department was also housed until its
functions were formally assigned to Graphics, and at
which, in addition, some bargaining unit employees
in other departments had also been housed during
periods preceding the effective date of the current
bargaining contract. There were no bargaining unit
employees in the Advanced Development Depart-
ment while it was at Babbitt Road or after it moved
to the South Miles facility.
There are now 203 employees at the Graphics R/D
Center, divided into 159 exempt and 44 nonexempt
employees. The Petitioner claims the 44 nonexempt
employees are part of its unit. The nonexempt
employees work as secretaries, as research model
makers, and as designers. The Employer's witnesses
testified that none of the nonexempt employees at
Graphics are now doing any work ever previously
performed by the bargaining unit employees.
4. Tower East Corporate Headquarters. In October
1971, the Employer moved its corporate headquar-
ters offices from the Babbitt Road facility to Tower
East, at Shaker Heights, Ohio, a location 8 miles
away. This move involved all of the high-ranking
corporate officers and their administrative staffs. It
did not involve any bargaining unit personnel.
Unlike the situation existing before the Employer's
reorganization of its corporate structure, the high-
ranking executives and their managerial employees
have now divested themselves of line responsibilities
for the divisional operations at Babbitt Road. They
have retained only the overall corporate staff
responsibilities.
The high-ranking executives and their supporting
managerial staffs are serviced by 84 nonexempt
office clericals, all of whom the Petitioner here claims
as part of its unit. However, only 5 of these 84 now
perform work which, if performed at Babbitt Road,
would be bargaining unit work.
As is apparent from the foregoing recitation, the
Employer's restructuring of its operations resulted in
certain drastic changes in the composition of the
work force of the Babbitt Road facility and adversely
affected the size of the unit historically represented
by the Petitioner .9 Petitioner seeks, understandably,
to offset the effect of some of these changes on the
unit it represents, and it filed this petition with that
objective in view. The question before us is whether
the clarification route is the appropriate method for
achieving the objective Petitioner seeks. We find that
it is not.
As indicated earlier, Petitioner has grounded its
petition, in part, on a claim that the office clerical
jobs performed in the facilities, supra, are substantial-
9 Under the present corporate structure, the Babbitt Road plant's Prospect, Illinois, with the result that portions of the bargaining unit
activities are confined to the manufacturing of Addressograph products. A personnel formerly connected with those activities were also adversely
Multigraph division, formerly housed there, has been moved to Mt. affected.
ADDRESSOGRAPH-MULTIGRAPH CORP. 895
ly identical to those held by unit employees before
the Employer reorganized its business structure
and/or to those now performed in the unit.
Testing this claim against the evidence set out
above, it is plain that no unit personnel has ever
performed any of the job duties now assigned to
employees of the Graphics Research Development
Center. Similarities in job duties now performed by
some clerical personnel at other of the new divisions
to those formerly performed by unit personnel can
be perceived. But dissimilarities are also apparent, as
many of the newly assigned duties involve work
never previously assigned to unit employees. Fur-
thermore, such similarities as do exist are attributable
to the fact that some of the management personnel at
the new divisions and for whom the clerical staffs in
issue here provide supporting services formerly
performed managerial duties at Babbitt Road. As is
obvious from the evidence set out above, however,
the functions and responsibilities assigned to such
official managerial personnel are substantially differ-
ent from those assigned to them at Babbitt Road.'°
Furthermore, hiring and supervision is separate;
there is no interchange of employees; and it is clear
that the restructuring of the Employer's business here
did not involve a mere relocation of portions of the
Babbitt Road operations and was not confined to
those operations.1'
Petitioner has alternatively grounded its petition on
a claim that evidence relating to the parties' practices
in administering their past contracts, as well as that
relating to their negotiation of the current contract,
establishes the Employer's agreement to extend
contract coverage to employees at any newly opened
operations in the area at which "bargaining unit"
work is being done. Neither the evidence on which
Petitioner relies, however, nor the accretion concepts
underlying its presentation, provide support for this
aspect of Petitioner's case.
The record shows, to be sure, that during the terms
of previous contracts, the Employer had occasion to
assign to personnel at facilities other than Babbitt
Road 12 some activities and functions identical to
those then being performed at the Babbitt Road
facility; and that the Employer voluntarily granted
10 Cf. White Motor Corporation, 164 NLRB 295; Patterson-Sargent
Division of Textron, Inc, 173 NLRB 1290.
11 See General Electric Company, 170 NLRB 1272.
2 Those facilities were located at sites known as Park Hill, Squibb,
Alpha Drive, South Miles Road, and Plant 7. The current contract mentions
only two of those locations, Park Hill and Squibb, both of which were
defunct as of the date of the hearing.
13 We note, in passing, that the Employer has long maintained three
other operations in the Greater Cleveland area having a similar autonomous
structures : Buckeye Ribbon & Carbon, the Cleveland Branch, and the
Cleveland Service Center, all of which employ office clerical staffs not
represented by any union. Some such clerical employees are assigned work
which, if performed at Babbitt Road, would be done by bargaining unit
employees. But there is no claim and no evidence that the parties ever
recognition to Petitioner as the representative of the
office clerical employees involved, even though the
express terms of the contracts then in effect did not
mention any sites or locations other than Babbitt
Road. But the record also shows that when contract
coverage was extended to employees at those sites,
the labor relations policies affecting those employees
were controlled from Babbitt Road; there was
employee interchange between each such facility and
Babbitt Road; there was common supervision of the
employees; and but for lack of space, the employees
involved would have been housed at the Babbitt
Road location. The situation giving rise to this
petition is not parallel. In the operations here in
issue, hiring and supervision are separate; there is no
interchange of employees; no maintenance of com-
mon personnel records; and labor relations policies
are independently established.13
Petitioner also adduced some evidence purporting
to show that, although the current contract of the
parties does not, on its face, extend to any employees
other than those employed at locations specified in
the contract, the Employer orally agreed during the
negotiations to extend coverage to any new locations
established in the area, in accord with a bargaining
proposal to this effect presented by Petitioner.
Employer witnesses participating in the negotiations
expressly denied having made such an oral commit-
ment, and indeed testified that they flatly rejected
the Petitioner's proposal. We need not resolve this
evidentiary conflict as, under established policy, we
would not consider a contractual commitment to
extend coverage to employees at new operations,
such as those here in issue, sufficient to justify
addition of such employees to an established unit
without the employees' consent.14
On the basis of the above, we are of the view that if
Petitioner desires to represent the office clerical
employees at Tower East Corporate Headquarters,
Data Systems Division, Amec, Inc., and Graphics
Research and Development Center, a proper proce-
dure would be the filing of a representation peti-
tion.15 To summarize, the considerations opposing
the clarification route are: the four newly established
operations are geographically separated from the
agreed to apply the terms of the unit contract to any such employees So far
as the record shows, Petitioner has never claimed, and does not now claun,
that any such employees are within the intended scope of its unit and should
therefore be accreted thereto without the employees' consent.
Significantly, the record established that , in 1952, voluntary recognition
was not extended to Petitioner for employees at one of the operations, the
Cleveland Branch. Petitioner , then affiliated with its present International's
predecessor, filed a representation petition and went on to an unsuccessful
election.
14 Patterson-Sargent Division of Textron; Inc., supra, Beacon Photo
Service, Inc., 163 NLRB 706.
15 We, of course, intimate no conclusions with respect to any of the
issues which might be raised in any such proceeding.
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Babbitt Road site; there is no interchange of
employees between the new operations of the Babbitt
Road plant ; the work performed at the new
operations is an amalgam of work from Babbitt
Road and other locations ; each operation has its own
labor relations policy separate from the Babbitt
Road plant ; the agreement between the Employer
and the Petitioner does not cover these operations;
and the number of employees that Petitioner seeks to
add to its unit without clear evidence of their consent
approximately equals the number its unit now
contains . We shall, therefore, dismiss this petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition for clarifica-
tion filed by Office and Professional Employees
International Union, Local No . 49, AFL-CIO, be,
and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.