American Can Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1547 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

AMERICAN CAN COMPANY 1547
the Employer. - In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt the
Regional Director's recommendations that these 17 challenges be sus-
tained. We also agree with the Regional Director that it is unneces-
sary to resolve the Union's challenges to the ballots of four other
employees as they cannot affect the results of the election. Accord-
ingly, as the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast,
we shall, as recommended by the Regional Director, certify the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in-the
appropriate unit.
[The Board certified International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of the
employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate.]
American Can Company and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 39-RC-9V. Decem-
ber 29, 1955
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 Arthur S. Safos, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named above claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of lithographic pressmen, feeders, and
inkmen at the Employer's Houston, Texas, plant.3 The Intervenor
contends that the requested unit is inappropriate on the ground that
a multiplant unit, consisting of employees at some 37 plants of the
Employer, including the Houston plant, which are currently covered
by the Intervenor's master agreement is the only appropriate unit.
The Employer takes no position as to the Petitioner's unit request but
opposes the Intervenor's contention that the only appropriate unit is
one based on the multiplant pattern described above.
1 The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, we are
amending the identification of the affiliation of the Unions accordingly.
® United Steelworkers of America , CIO, and its Local 2126 intervened on the basis of a
contract interest . They are collectively referred to hereinafter as the Intervenor.
3 The Houston plant is 1 of about 60 plants operated by the Employer in various parts
of the United States and Canada.
114 NLRB No. 238.
1548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer's companywide operations and its bargaining rela-
tions with the Intervenor, dating back to 1937, have been described in
previous cases,4 and that description is in substance applicable here.
In accordance with those decisions, we find no merit in the Inter-
venor's contention. In those cases, the Board declined to find ap-
propriate such a multiplant unit as it did not conform to any func-
tional, administrative, or geographic segment of the Employer's op-
erations and as there was no history of bargaining on the basis of such
aunit6
Since issuance of the decisions in question, the Employer has exe-
cuted revisions of the master agreement with the Intervenor in October
1954 and October 1955, the latter after the filing of the petition in this
case which occurred on July 26,1955.
The Intervenor now urges that those decisions should be reversed
in view of the changed membership of the Board since they were
decided, or, in the alternative, that those decisions are inapplicable here
in view of alleged changed circumstances relating to the Employer's
bargaining relations with the Intervenor. These changes relate prin-
cipally to verbal alterations in the wording of the preamble and recog-
nition clauses and a shift in the level of bargaining from a single-
plant basis to an overall pattern as to such matters as wages and
grievance procedure. However, those changes have not been sufficient
to establish an intent to abandon the single-plant basis of bargaining.
Indeed, in the course of the negotiations leading to execution of the
1955 contract, the Employer rejected a demand by the Intervenor that
the contract spell out a multiplant unit. We conclude, therefore, that
there has been no change in facts or circumstances substantial
enough to persuade us to reverse the previous decisions or to regard
them as inapplicable, and we adhere to them.
As the appropriateness of a multiplant unit has not been estab-
lished, the question remains whether the unit sought by the Petitioner
on a single-plant basis is appropriate. In view of the skills and
techniques incident to the lithographic process, the Board has held
that all employees engaged in the lithographic process at a single plant
form a cohesive unit appropriate for collective bargaining despite a
history of collective bargaining on a single-plant basis,6 and that sev-
erance of a lithographic process unit, as sought by the Petitioner, is in
accord with our policy enunciated in American Potash c0 Chemical
Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
4 American Can Company, 109 NLRB 1284, 110 NLRB 3.
5 Former Chairman Farmer and Member Peterson, being of the view that the record
showed a substantial bargaining history on a multiplant basis, dissented in American Can
Company, 110 NLRB 3. In American Can Company, 110 NLRB 3, former Chairman
Farmer and Member Peterson disagreed with the factual finding that bargaining had not
taken place on a multiplant basis but deemed themselves bound on this issue by the
majority opinion in American Can Company, 109 NLRB 1284.
6 See, for example, Continental Can Company, Inc., 110 NLRB 1042
RUFFALO'S TRUCKING SERVICE, INC. 1549
In view of the foregoing, and the fact that the Petitioner has tra-
ditionally represented such employees, we find that the employees en-
gaged in the lithographic process at the Employer's Houston plant
may constitute a separate appropriate unit if they so desire. We shall
not, however, make a final unit determination at this time, but shall
direct that the question concerning representation which exists with
regard to these employees be resolved by an election by secret ballot
among the employees in the following voting group : All lithographic
process employees at the Employer's plant in Houston, Texas, in-
cluding pressmen, feeders, press supply or inkmen,' and lithographic
apprentices, but excluding all other employees and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
If the majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to consti-
tute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting
the election herein is instructed to certify the Petitioner as repre-
sentative for the unit described in the voting group above, which
the Board finds, in that event, to be appropriate for purposes of
.collective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority vote for the
Intervenor,' they will be taken to have indicated a desire to remain
in the existing plantwide unit at the Houston plant and the Regional
Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
ifText of Direction of Election omitted front publication.]
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
7 At the hearing, the Employer took no position as to the unit sought by the Petitioner
but asserted generally that a question existed as to the unit placement of the press supply
or inkman who handles ink plates As this employee has special knowledge concerning
lithographic inks and plates and works entirely or substantially in connection with the
lithographic process , we include this category in the unit.
8 The Inteivenor requested , in the event that its unit contention be rejected , that its
name be placed on the ballot "in the unit that the Board finds appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining "
Ruffalo's Trucking Service , Inc. and Dominick Scutella, Peti-
tioner and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local No. 506,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 3-RD-113. December 29, 1955
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 Murray S. Freeman, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from ,prej udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
114 NLRB No. 246.