Continental Can Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 409 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC. 409
persons thereby discouraging membership in the Union and thereby engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily failing and refusing to promote Vernon Harris to superior
positions subsequent to his employment on October 3, 1951 , Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Appendix A
Initial
Application
Name 1951
Wiley Asher ----------- March 31
Paul A. Bailey_________ March 29
William Banks, Jr------ March 29
Marie Berg_____ _______ March 29
Beryle Broyles__________ June 30
Alice Cowan--------- October 26
Irene Dunbar__ __________ April 3
Shelton Dickey__________ April 4
Walter Fleming________ March 30
Nora Gann______________ April 2
Iva Hamm_____________ April 11
Agnes Hammond Holland-March 29
Wilma Hoover________ August 18
Initial
Application
Name 1951
Ila Mae Johnson_________ April 6
Nola C. Jones___________ April 4
Ruth Nelson____________ April 6
Edith Berryhill Pickering__ May 1
George Pickering________ April 2
Virgie Philyaw___________ April 9
Mary Lou Riley__________ April 5
Leona Sawyer__________ March 29
Dempsey Shelton______ March 30
Toney Sloan____________ April 2
Tom Toliver___________ March 30
Lola Wilson___________ March 29
CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC., PLANT No. 40 and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL No. 31, A. F. L., PETITIONER.
CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC., PLANT No. 40 and AMALGAMATED
LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 38, C. I. 0., PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 17-RC-1851 and 17-RC-1863. October 19, 195 .
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Margaret L. Fassig, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No. 31,
A. F. L., herein called the IAM; Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local No. 38, C. I. 0., herein called the Amalgamated;
United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called the Steelwork-
ers; and International Union, United Automobile Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL, herein called UAW-AFL, are labor organizations claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
110 NLRB No. 58
410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Questions affecting commerce exist 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.
4. In Case No . 17-RC-1851, the IAM seeks a production and main-
tenance unit , including employees in the lithographic department, at
the Employer 's Omaha, Nebraska, plant. The Employer , the Steel-
workers , and the UAW-AFL agree with the unit position of the
IAM. In Case No. 17-RC-1863, the Amalgamated seeks a separate
craft unit of lithographic production employees . The sole issue raised
at the hearing concerns the appropriateness of the separate unit
sought by the Amalgamated.
There is no collective -bargaining history at the Omaha plant. It
is a new metal container manufacturing plant within the Employer's
central division which, as of the hearing date, was expected to com-
mence operations about September 1, 1954. The lithographic work
to be performed at the Omaha plant will be substantially the same
as that performed at the Employer 's other metal container plants,
many of which have separate bargaining units of lithographic em-
ployees represented by the Amalgamated.'
In the Employer 's lithographic department, the employees sought
by the Amalgamated , as clarified in its brief, include only the press-
men, pressfeeders , and apprentices . There will also be employed in
this department employees engaged in coating and oven stripping
functions , not sought by the Amalgamated, who are not skilled and
are not considered as part of the lithographic craft. The record
shows that the pressmen , with the assistance of the pressfeeders, will
operate the Employer's lithographic presses. It was testified on be-
half of the Amalgamated that 4 years of apprenticeship training are
required for an individual to become a journeyman pressman, and
that the contracts of the Amalgamated covering other metal container
plants of the Employer incorporate such apprenticeship requirements.
At the time of the hearing there were on the payroll of the Omaha
plant only four employees , classified as lithographic trainees, en-
compassed in the requested unit of the Amalgamated . All four em-
ployees were selected by the Employer because of their background
and experience in the field of lithographic and graphic arts. These
employees will work at the Omaha plant under the close supervision
and guidance of foremen who are journeymen lithographers. It
was anticipated that when lithographic operations were commenced
at Omaha , about September 1, 1954, each of the 4 employees would
have had at least 31/2 months of training under journeymen lithog-
raphers at the Employer 's Milwaukee plant. In addition , each will
require approximately 1,500 hours of further apprenticeship before
1 See, e . g, Continental Can Company , Inc., 105 NLRB 210 (Portland , Oregon , plant)
91 NLRB 500 (St Louis, Missouri, plant)
CONTINENTAL -CAN COMPANY, INC. 411
being fully qualified by the Employer as a lithographic pressman.
On the entire record, we find that the Amalgamated has requested
a traditional craft unit such as the Board has frequently found may
be appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes.' The appropri-
ateness of such a unit is not precluded by the fact that the unit, as
presently shown, embraces only trainees or apprentices, and does not
include any journeymen lithographers.'
Accordingly, we shall direct that elections be conducted in the fol-
lowing voting groups of employees at the Employer's Omaha,
Nebraska, plant :
(1) All lithographic pressmen, lithographic pressfeeders, and ap-
prentices, excluding coaters and oven strippers,4 and all other em-
ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All production and maintenance employees, including plant
clerical employees and cafeteria employees,' but excluding litho-
graphic pressmen, lithographic pressfeeders and apprentices, office
clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (1) select the
Union seeking to represent them separately, those employees will
be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bar-
gaining unit and the Regional Director conducting the election is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to that labor
organization for the unit. In this eventuality, if a majority of the
employees in voting group (2) select a bargaining representative,
the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the labor organization thus selected, and the Board, in
the circumstances, finds the employees in voting group (2) to con-
stitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes. If,
however, a majority of the employees in voting group (1) do not
vote for the Union seeking to represent them in a separate unit, that
group will appropriately be included in the production and main-
tenance unit and their votes shall be pooled with those in voting
group (2),s and the Regional Director conducting the election is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor or-
ganization selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled
2E. g, The Heekvn Can Company, 89 NLRB 717, 97 NLRB 783; Continental Can
Company, Inc , supra; cf. Fey Publication Company, 108 NLRB 1031; Diamond Printing
Company, 109 NLRB 112.
See Continental Can Company, Inc., 105 NLRB 210.
See Continental Can Company, Inc, ibid.
See Mrs Tucker' s Products , 106 NLRB 533 ( plant clericals ) ; and Nebel Knitting
Company, 106 NLRB 114 (cafeteria employees).
9 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for
the Union seeking the separate unit shall be counted as valid votes , but neither for nor
against any union seeking the more comprehensive unit; all other votes are to be accorded
their face value whether for representation by a union seeking the comprehensive unit
or for no union. American Potash & Chemical Corvoration . 107 NLRB 1418.
412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
group, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a single
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
5. The Steelworkers moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground
that they were premature because of a contemplated expansion of the
employee complement at the Omaha plant. There were 86 unit em-
ployees on the Employer's payroll for the week ending July 25, 1954.
The Employer ultimately intends to employ between 350 and 400 em-
ployees. It was expected that the plant would commence operations
about September 1, 1954, as already noted, and that by November 1,
1954, the Employer would have employed 50 percent or more of its
anticipated employee complement in substantially all classifications.
With respect to the lithographic unit, the Employer ultimately ex-
pects to employ 4 pressmen and 4 pressfeeders. Also to be employed
in the lithographic department are 4 oven strippers and 2 coaters, not
included in the unit.
We shall provide for an election to be held by December 1, 1954, or
on such earlier date, to be selected by the Regional Director, as it shall
appear that a substantial and representative number of employees is
then employed in each of the voting groups. (Eligibility shall be de-
termined by the payroll period immediately preceding the issuance of
a notice of elections.) We believe that the working force which will
be employed when the elections directed herein are held will be a sub-
stantial and representative segment of the employees to be employed
in the voting groups for a reasonable time in the future. Accordingly,
the Steelworkers' motion to dismiss is hereby denied.'
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
7 See, e. g., A. M. & F. Products, 106 NLRB 1074.
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC.' and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL. Case No. 1-CA-1553. October 20,
1954
Decision and Order
On June 8, 1954, Trial Examiner Earl S. Bellman issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in the unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
1 The name of the Employer appears as set forth in the answer , exceptions, and brief.
110 NLRB No. 61.