Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc. of Pennsylvania

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 22, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 343 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

CUNEO EASTERN PRESS, INC. OF PENNSYLVANIA 343
CUNEO EASTERN PRESS, INC. OF PENNSYLVANIA and
PHILADELPHIA MAILERS UNION NO. 14 AFFILIATED
WITH INTERNATIONAL MAILERS UNION, Petitioner. Case
No. 4-RC-1907. July 22, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William
Naimark, 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 Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer and the intervening Bookbinders i contend that
their current bargaining agreement , which was executed and
effective December 4, 1950, and which has an expiration date
of October 15, 1953, is a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner
contends that the agreement is not a bar because it is of
unreasonable duration, and has passed its second anniversary
and also because the agreement 's "Mill B" date of July 15,
1953, is only several weeks away. In view of the fact that the
"Mill B" date of the foregoing agreement is less than 30 days
from the date of this decision, we find that the agreement is
not a bar.' Accordingly, we do not find it necessary to consider
the merits of the various contentions regarding the reasonable-
ness of the duration of the agreement in question.
The Petitioner seeks a unit comprising all of the female
employees in the Employer's bindery who work only on the
first and second shifts and who are currently represented
by the Bookbinders as part of a multiemployer unit. In the
alternative, if the Board finds the foregoing unit to be inappro-
priate, the Petitioner seeks to represent all of the female
employees of the Employer and other employers comprising
the multiemployer unit, currently represented by the Book-
binders pursuant to an agreement between it and a multiem-
ployer association known as Allied Printing Employers' Asso-
ciation.3
[Bookbinders & Bindery Women's Local No. 2, affiliated with international Brotherhood of
Bookbinders, AFL. The Printing & Paper Trades Auxiliary Workers, Local Industrial Union
No. 520, CIO, herein called the Auxiliary Workers, was also permitted to intervene on the
basis of a current contract covering certain of the Employer's bindery employees.
2 Union Oil Company of California, 96 NLRB 1016.
3 This agreement is the one which the Employer and the Bookbinders would assert as a bar.
106 NLRB No. 48.
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer and both of the intervening unions contend that
a single employer unit of the Employer's first- and second-
shift female employees, as sought by the Petitioner, is in-
appropriate because of a history of collective bargaining for
these employees as part of the multiemployer unit. The
Intervenors further maintain that this historical unit is the only
appropriate unit insofar as these particular employees are
concerned. The Employer, although agreeing with the Inter-
venors that the multiemployer unit is appropriate, also con-
tends that if the collective -bargaining history is not controlling,
the only other appropriate unit would be a single employer
departmental unit embracing all of the Employer's male and
female bindery workers employed on all shifts, with the possi-
ble exception of male journeymen.
The Employer is engaged in the printing and binding of
periodicals, magazines, and like products. Since about 1933,
the Employer has been a member of successive organizations
of printing firms formed for the purpose of bargaining with
the various unions representing their employees. Since 1945,
most of these firms, including the Employer, have been
members of the Allied Printing Employers' Association, the
present contracting organization, which negotiates with the
Bookbinders regarding the employees herein involved. The
first contract of record between an employer association, of
which the instant Employer was a member, and the Bookbinders
was executed in 1940 and recognized the Bookbinders as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all Bookbinders male
members employed in the various binderies of the Association's
members. In 1943, the Bookbinders female members were
covered by a similar contract between the same contracting
parties which established the present associationwide female
unit of which the Employer's first- and second-shift female
bindery employees are a part. This division into male and
female units, with separate bargaining agreements for each
unit, has continued to date. However, for reasons which are
not apparent on the record, and at a time which the record
fails to reveal, jurisdiction over the Employer's third-shift
male and female bindery employees was vested in the Auxiliary
Workers, and at least as early as 1943 these third-shift
employees were bargained for as a separate, single employer
unit. As a result, for at least the last 10 years the Employer's
female bindery employees of the first and second shift have
been represented by the Bookbinders as a part of an associa-
tionwide unit. Whereas the third-shift bindery employees, both
male and female, who, with only a few minor exceptions,
perform the same work and exercise the same skills as the
first- and second-shift females, have been represented by an
entirely different bargaining representative, the Auxiliary
Workers, in a separate, single employer unit.
The unit of first- and second-shift female employees sought
by the Petitioner as a separate, single employer unit does not
conform to department or craft lines. As noted above, the
employees on the third shift, whom the Petitioner does not
seek and would specifically exclude from the proposed unit,
F. E. SCHUNDLER & CO., INC. 345
perform the same work in the same department and exercise
substantially the same skills as do the employees comprising
the unit sought. Because the proposed unit comprises only a
segment of a group of employees who possess similar skills
and perform comparable work, we find that it is inappropriate.4
With regard to the Petitioner's alternate request for an
associationwide unit identical with the present, long-established
contract unit, it appears that such unit is confined to female
employees. The Board has held that units based upon sex are
inappropriate,' and absent a showing that there exists a sub-
stantial difference in skills between male and female em-
ployees,' the Board will dismiss a petition requesting a unit
so predicated. But even if we assume that the contract unit
can be justified on the basis of difference in skills between
sexes--and the record suggests that such difference may
exist, at least at the Employer's plant--we would not order an
election in the requested unit because the Petitioner does not
possess sufficient showing of interest among the employees
composing said unit and because one of the essential con-
tracting parties, Allied Printing Employers Association, was
not made a party to this proceeding, nor was it given notice of
hearing.
Accordingly, by reason of all of the foregoing, and upon the
entire record, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
4lnternational Harvester Company, 100 NLRB 1345.
5 Underwriters Salvage Company of New York,'99 NLRB 337.
6Cf. Lloyd Hollister, Inc., 55 NLRB 32; H. W. Wilson Company, 48 NLRB 938.
F. E. SCHUNDLER & CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION 953, Petitioner
F. E. SCHUNDLER & CO., INC. and CHAUFFEURS, TEAM-
STERS & HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 492, AFL, Petitioner.
Cases Nos . 33-RC-448 and 33-RC-450 . July 22, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was
held in the above-entitled cases before Byron Guse, 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 these cases to a three-member panel [Members
Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
106 NLRB No. 58.