Burroughs Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 347 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

BURROUGHS CORP ., THE TODD COMPANY DIVISION 347
In A. Harris d Co.,' the Board reexamined its policies with respect
to the establishment of separate units of warehousing employees in
the retail department store industry . In accordance with that deci-
sion, the Board will find appropriate a separate unit of warehousing
employees where : ( 1) the Employer 's warehousing operation is geo-
graphically separated from its retail store operations ; ( 2) there is
separate supervision of employees engaged in warehousing functions;
and (3 ) there is no substantial integration among the warehousing
employees and those engaged in other functions . However, as stated
in Sears, Roebuck d Company,' "Only where all three of these condi-
tions are met will such units be approved."
We now turn to the facts of the instant case. Assuming that the
service center is a warehouse though, as the record shows, less than
half of its space is devoted to warehousing and storage operations, we
are convinced that the operation does not meet the geographical sep-
aration requirement of Harris . Not only are the service center and
the Plaza store physically and geographically connected but their
operations are so designed as to be physically integrated to the extent
that if the center were not attached to the retail store, the store would
have to be redesigned in great part to include facilities now located
in the center . Furthermore, the record shows that there are many
classifications of employees common to the stores and center with a
constant , substantial interchange of employees between the two facili-
ties and that the center employees do not have the separate supervision
required by Harris . We therefore find that these circumstances pre-
clude the establishment of a separate unit of the employees of the
Employer's Reisterstown Plaza service center, Baltimore , Maryland."
Accordingly , we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
9 116 NLRB 1628.
7117 NLRB 133, 134
8 Mt7cns, 124 NLRB 389, 391; Rhodes, Inc., 124 NLRB 714, 716; Sears, Roebuck
Company, supra.
Burroughs Corporation , The Todd Company Division ' and Local
No. 11 , Amalgamated Lithographers of America , Petitioner.
Case No. 3-RC-2847. October 18, 1962
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 Henry J. Winters,
1 The names of the Employer and the Petitioner appear as amended at the hearing.
139 NLRB No. 24.
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of 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 production em-
ployees 2 at the Employer's Rochester, New York Eastern Printing
plant where the Company prints business forms and negotiable instru-
ments by both letterpress and lithographic processes. In its unit, the
Petitioner would include employees in the lithographic preparation,
platemaking, and press departments, all of whom the parties agree are
engaged in typical lithographic work and possess and exercise the
skills associated with such work. The requested employees do not
interchange with letterpress employees and clearly constitute a litho-
graphic unit such as the Board customarily finds to be appropriate?
The Employer agrees that a lithographic unit is appropriate, but con-
tends that in view of the high degree of integration of its operations
such unit should include, in addition to the employees in the three
departments the Petitioner seeks, employees in its paper processing,
warehousing, and finishing departments. It further contends that the
work in paper processing is essentially lithographic in nature. Also
in dispute is the unit placement of certain other classifications of
employees.
The paper processing department processes paper, purchased by
the Employer, so as to convert it into "safety paper." 4 About 90 to
95 percent of the paper processed by this department is subsequently
used for lithographic production work; however, approximately half
of the department's total output of "safety paper" is shipped to the
Employer's other plants. Nevertheless, about 70 to 75 percent of the
paper used at the plant here involved is processed in this department.
As the Employer did not wish to reveal the details of its "safety
paper" process, the record is incomplete concerning its exact nature,
but does indicate that a part of the operation is lithographic. How-
Y There is no bargaining history for these employees.
e See Allen, Lane & Scott, et al., 137 NLRB 223.
This process was developed and is used exclusively by the Employer. Negotiable in-
struments made of such paper are rendered useless by erasures or chemical voiding.
BURROUGHS CORP., THE TODD COMPANY DIVISION 349
ever, the presses are extensively modified after purchase by the Em-
ployer and the plates are not made in the plant's lithographic prepara-
tion department. The plant manager testified that while the skills
of the pressmen are the "same or comparable" to those of the offset
pressmen in the press department, the paper processing pressmen
receive 10 to 30 cents an hour more than the offset pressmen and there
is no interchange between the two groups. Moreover, it would re-
quire 2 to 3 months' training for an offset pressmen to operate a
paper processing press.
On the basis of this record, it is not established that the paper
processing operation is essentially a lithographic operation, or that
the employees in that department spend a predominant amount of
their time in traditional lithographic work. Nor does it appear their
work is an integral part of the lithographic process such as would
warrant their inclusion for that reason with lithographic production
employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude the employees in this de-
partment form the unit.'
The warehousing department is actually a stockroom for paper.
Although the employees in this department handle paper used for
both the lithographic and letterpress process, 90 to 95 percent of their
time is devoted to handling paper to be used for lithographic work.
These employees, who require about a year to become proficient, receive
the paper, inspect it for flaws and loose rolls, maintain inventories,
and transport the paper to the press department. Some of them op-
erate forklift trucks. They handle no other supplies, do no shipping,
and are separately supervised. The finishing department employees
perform miscellaneous duties, such as collating, drilling, cornering,
inspecting, padding, wrapping, and transporting documents, after
they leave the press department and prior to shipment.
We find without merit the Employer's contention that the em-
ployees in these two departments properly belong in the requested
lithographic production unit. The record does not show that they
engage in work that is an integral part of, or otherwise intimately
connected with, the lithographic production operation. They are
not in the direct line of progression to the more skilled classifications
of employees engaged in the traditional lithographic work and do
not interchange with those employees. In these circumstances, there
is no basis for finding that the employees in the warehousing and
finishing departments appropriately belong in the requested litho-
graphic production unit, and they are, therefore, excluded.'
5 There are several ink mixers in paper processing As only 30 percent of the ink they
prepare is used in the press department and 70 percent in paper processing , we find they
are not predominantly engaged in the lithographic process and, thus, shall not include
them. Sutherland Paper Company, 122 NLRB 1284 , footnote 13.
a Accord : Allen, Lane & Scott, et al , Supra; Miller & Miller, Inc, 132 NLRB 1530;
Guardian Printing and Litho Corp, 125 NLRB 9 , 11. See also Shumate, Incorporated,
Case No 25-RC-1941 , Supplemental Decision ( not published in NLRB volumes ), while
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There remains for determination the unit placement of the follow-
ing employees, all of whom the Petitioner would exclude and the
Employer would include :
Copy artists prepare artwork for lithographic printing on the basis
of ideas and rough sketches submitted by customers and the method
artists in the sales office. As this is not essentially creative work, and
as the artists are predominantly engaged in the lithographic process,
we shall include them .7
The preparatory planner routes customers' orders to various work
centers in lithographic preparation and specifies the style and size of
type and the appropriate spacing to be used; the preparatory, OAK
and MICR inspectors function as proofreaders. We find that these
employees and the operators of the Vari-Typer and headliner ma-
chines are engaged in work outside the traditional lithographic oper-
ation, and they are therefore excluded.8
The material gatherers maintain files of negatives and artwork.
Some are trained as modelmakers, a category which the parties agree
is properly included in the unit; work as modelmakers when the em-
ployees in those categories are absent for illness or other reasons, and
when additional help is needed; and are considered for positions as
modelmakers when such jobs are available. The record does not, how-
ever, establish that they spend a predominant amount of their time
as modelmakers. As the work of the material gatherers is essentially
clerical in nature, we shall exclude them from the unit.9
The numbering machine repairman, employed in the press rather
than the maintenance department, is responsible for the repair of
the numbering machine, which is used for orders which require num-
bered documents. His most important duty is to set the machine by
putting the numbering wheels in their proper positions; it is the press-
man, however, who actually puts the machine in the press. We find
that the numbering machine repairman does not exercise the tradi-
tional lithographic skills and we shall therefore exclude him from
the unit.10
the Board included roll warehousemen in the lithographic unit in its original decision,
131 NLRB 98, footnote 3, relied on by the Employer, it excluded them in its supplemental
decision, predicated on a more complete record , on the grounds that "they are principally
engaged in warehousing , shipping and receiving functions , they spend little time in per-
forming functions which are integral to the lithographic production process, and they are
not in the direct line of progression to the more skilled classifications within the litho-
graphic unit . "
-1llei Lane R Scott, et at , supra at 228
s Accord* Id, 228 , Miller it Miller, Inc, supra at 1533 Hal W Padgett, et at, d/b/a
Padgett Printing and Lithographing Company, 101 NLRB 144, 146; The Madison Com-
pany, 92 NLRB 914
° Allen, Lane it Scott, et al, supra at 228 If any of these employees do in fact spend
more than 50 percent of their time in modelmaking , they are included in the unit.
"Accord : St Louis Lithographing Company, 114 NLRB 24, 26.
J. G. COWARD, JR., DITCHING SERVICE 351
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All lithographic production employees at the Employer's Rochester,
New York, Eastern Printing plant, including the copy artists, model-
makers, opaquers, combination camera-stripping men, in the litho-
graphic preparation department; the pressmen, helpers, and service-
men, in the press department; and the platemakers in the platemaking
department; but excluding all employees in the paper processing,
warehousing, and finishing departments; the preparatory planners,
material gatherers, preparatory inspectors, and the operators of the
Vari-Typer and headliner in the lithographic preparation depart-
ment; the numbering machine repairman and the OK and MICR
inspectors in the press department; office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
J. G. Coward, Jr., d/b/a J. G. Coward , Jr., Ditching Service and
Port Arthur and Vicinity Building and Trades Council A.F.L.-
C.I.O. and/or the International Hodcarriers, Building and
Common Laborers of America, Local Union 853, A.F.L.-C.I.O.
Case No. AO-45. October 19, 1962
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
ADVISORY OPINION
On September 4, 1962, J. G. Coward, Jr., d/b/a J. G. Coward, Jr.,
Ditching Service, herein called the Petitioner, filed a petition for
advisory opinion in the above-entitled proceeding alleging the exist-
ence of an injunction suit pending in the 60th District Court of Jeffer-
son County, Texas, as Docket No. B-79538, filed by the Petitioner
against Port Arthur and Vicinity Building and Trades Council
A.F.L.-C.I.O., and International Hodcarriers Building and Com-
mon Laborers of America, Local Union 853, A.F.L.-C.I.O., herein
called Trades Council and Hodcarriers, respectively. On Septem-
ber 19, the Trades Council filed an answer alleging that the pending
district court proceeding, docket No. B-79538, had been dismissed by
the district court judge. By letter dated September 27, 1962, Petition-
er's Counsel reiterated the request for an advisory opinion while con-
ceding that the injunction suit is no longer pending. The Board hav-
ing duly considered this matter,
IT IS HEREBY ORDE DD that the Petition for advisory opinion be,
and it hereby is, dismissed as there is no proceeding involving the ques-
tion of the Board's jurisdiction over the operations of the Petitioner
pending in any agency or court of any State or Territory.
139 NLRB No. 26.