Advertisers Associates, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 4, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 774 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the Employer, when physically able to return. However, what-
ever Pipkin's status under the contract before April 30, he was in-
cluded in the general layoff of April 30 and, as found by the Regional
Director, "is in the same category as the other employees laid off on
April 30 " In these circumstances, it appears that Pipkm had no
reasonable expectancy of recall in the near future as of the time of the
election, and we shall therefore sustain the challenge to his ballot 6
2 The ballot of Michael A. Gallegos was challenged by the Peti-
tioner on the ground that Gallegos was a clerical employee The
investigation disclosed that he is a truckdriver, and the Regional
Director therefore recoimnended that the challenge to his ballot be
overruled 7 No exception was taken to this recommendation Ac-
cordingly, we shall overrule the challenge to this ballot and direct that
it be opened and counted.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region shall, pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, and within ten (10) days from the date of this
Direction, open and count the ballot of Michael A Gallegos and serve
upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots, including therein the
count of the challenged ballot ]
6 A motion for consideration of current supporting evidence to exceptions to report on
challenged ballots filed by the Intervenor on Suly 28, 195$, concerns alleged recent
occurrences which, even if assumed to be true , do not warrant a different finding herein
in the cases of the five employees in question See Personal Products Corperatson, lie
NLRB 393 footnote 11
Truckdrivers are included in the appropriate unit in this ease
Advertisers Associates, Inc. and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local 24, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No 6-RC-2032.
September 4., 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board herein on April 2, 1958,1 the Regional Director for the Sixth
Region conducted an election by secret ballot on April 22, 1958, among
the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate Upon the
conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with-a tally of
ballots The tally shows that of approximately 15 eligible voters, 15
cast ballots, of which 5 were for the Petitioner, 3 were against the
Petitioner, and 7 were challenged
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director investigated them and
I Not published
121 NLRB No 97
ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATES, INC. 775
on July 11, 1958, issued and duly served on the parties a report on
challenged ballots in which he found that the challenges to the ballots
of six voters should be sustained and that the remaining challenge
could best be resolved through a formal hearing in the event that the
resolution of this challenge should appear necessary. Thereafter, the
Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report,
and the Petitioner, with permission of the Board, filed a reply to the
exceptions. Subsequently, the Employer, with permission of the
Board, filed a reply to the Petitioner's reply brief.
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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Fanning].
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the excep-
tions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director.
The Petitioner challenged the ballots of 5 employees-composition
paper-plate makers Coletta Heldorfer, Anna Kristone, and Catherine
Racke, papercutter and folding machine operator Francis Bell, and
multigraph operator Paul Paulson-on the ground that they are ex-
cluded from the lithographic production unit found appropriate by
the Board. The Regional Director recommended sustaining these
challenges. The Employer excepts.
Two of the three composition paper-plate makers, Heldorfer and
Kristone, operate standard IBM electric typewriters. They spend
approximately 80 percent of their time typing directly onto a so-called
paper plate, also referred to as multilith mat, and proofreading the
typed copy. These paper plates are then reproduced on the multilith
machine. The remainder of these employees' work consists of typing
on specially prepared paper which is subsequently processed through
the photographic section. Employee Racke operates a so-called auto-
type IBM typewriter. Her work is not duplicated or processed in the
lithograph department. Twenty percent of her time is spent in help-
ing the two other girls in their work. On the payroll list submitted
by the Employer prior to the representation hearing these three em-
ployees were classified as typists. In agreement with the Regional
Director, we find that these employees are essentially typists. As the
unit herein was limited to lithographic production employees, we find
that they are excluded therefrom and hereby sustain the challenges
to their ballots 2
The Employer also excepts to the Regional Director's findings that
employees Francis Bell and Paul Paulson are not included in the
lithographic production unit.
s Josten Manufacturing Company, et al., 101 NLRB 189, 191 ; Padgett Printing and
Lithographing Company, 101 NLRB 144, 147.
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bell is classified as a papercutter and folding machine operator.
He spends most of his time operating this equipment. In addition,
he works in the stockroom and occasionally operates an addressograph
machine. On rare occasions he also performs opaquing work. We
find that Bell is essentially a papercutter and is excluded from the
unit a
Employee Paulson operated a multilith machine from March 1 to
November 1, 1957. After a period of hospitalization, he returned to
the plant on December 10, 1957, and since that time has operated a
multigraph machine. The Employer contends that Paulson is being
trained on the multigraph machine so as to be able eventually to run
a so-called tandem multilith-multigraph machine. This machine has
not as yet been put into operation, nor has Paulson received any train-
ing on the machine itself. We find that Paulson is a multigraph
operator and excluded from the unit on the basis of his present duties.4
Accordingly, we sustain the challenges to the ballots of Bell and
Paulson.
The Regional Director recommended sustaining the challenge of the
Employer to the ballot of James R. Deily on the ground that he works
in the shipping and receiving operations. As no exceptions have been
taken to this recommendation, we hereby sustain the challenge to
this ballot.
The Petitioner challenged the ballot of Henry Czapinski on the
ground that he is a supervisor. The Regional Director found that,
because of evidence presented during the investigation, Czapinski's
status could best be resolved at a hearing. The Employer excepts to
this finding. In view of our disposition of the other challenges, the
challenged ballot of Czapinski cannot affect the results of the election.
Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to determine the validity of
Czapinski's vote at a hearing or otherwise.
As the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast in
the election, we shall certify it as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Lo-
cal 24, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representa-
tive of all the lithographic production employees at the Employer's
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, plant, in the unit heretofore found
appropriate.]
8 St. Louis Lithographing Company, 114 NLRB 24.
* Plankinton Packing Company (Division of Swift & Co.), 116 NLRB 1225, 1229.