Employing Printers of Peoria

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1511 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

EMPLOYING PRINTERS OF PEORIA 1511
own initiative, called Kelsey and arranged a visit with him in Kelsey's office. Fields_
began the visit by stating "we had a union meeting last night," at which point Kelsey
protested discussing the matter further and suggested that it was something that was
entirely the affair of the employees.
The interrogation recountered by Fields and denied by Kelsey, if found by me to
have occurred, would be the only evidence of involvement of this employer in the
union affairs of its employees. As it stands thus in isolation I would of necessity be
required to recommend- that the complaint, insofar as it alleges a violation in this
respect, be dismissed.13 Accordingly, I find it unnecessary to resolve the dispute in
the testimony of these two witnesses.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
18 Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591.
Employing Printers of Peoria 1 and Amalgamated Lithographers
of America, Local No. 4, Petitioner.. Case No. 13-RC-7341.
March 23, 1961
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 Gordon J. Myatt , 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 Rodgers , Leedom, and Fanning].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer 2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Acts
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of lithographic production em- ,
ployees employed by certain members of the Employer from an over-
all unit of printing and lithographic production employees. The
' The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
8 At the hearing, Peoria Printing Pressmen & Assistants ' Union , Local No. 68, Inter-
national Printing Pressmen & Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein
called Pressmen , and Peoria Typographical Union No. 29 , affiliated with International
Typographical Union , AFL-CIO, herein called ITU, were allowed to intervene on the basis
of a contractual showing of interest.
8 The Pressmen contend that an existing contract between the ITU and Loheide-Caswell
Co., a member of the Employer, which was executed on November 1, 1958 , to run until
October 31 , 1960 , and which covers only Loheide 's employees , is a bar. Apart from any
other considerations, we find that the contract would not be a bar because the petition,
which was filed on August 4, 1960, was timely. See Deluxe Metal Furniture Company,
121 NLRB 995. -
130 NLRB No. 156.
1512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pressmen and the Employer maintain that the requested unit is not an
appropriate lithographic production unit because few, if any, of the
employees are engaged solely in lithographic production work, but
are rather "combination men," i.e., they perform both letterpress and
lithographic production work. The ITU takes no position on the
general unit question, except that it disagrees with the Pressmen's
contention that any unit of lithographic production employees which
the Board might find appropriate should include the employees of
Loheide-Caswell, a member-company of the Employer, whom the
Petitioner does not seek to include in its requested unit and whose em-
ployees are currently represented by the ITU.4
The Employer is an association of employing printers located in
Peoria, Illinois, and has represented its members in their collective-
bargaining relations with the printing trades' unions for more than
50 years. Of the 14 companies which comprise the Employer, 7 con-
cededly do not employ lithographic production employees.5 Another
member-company, Fleming-Potter Co., Inc., does employ lithographic
production employees. However, these employees have been sepa-
rately represented by the Petitioner under contract with that com-
pany and none of the parties argue for their inclusion in the unit
contended for herein. The employees of still another member-
company, Loheide-Caswell, have been represented in a separate typo-
graphical unit by the ITU for approximately 30 years and have been
excluded from the coverage of the contracts negotiated by the Em-
ployer and the Pressmen for the overall unit of printing and litho-
graphic production employees. The Pressmen contend that these
employees, whom the Petitioner does not seek should be included in
any lithographic production unit which the Board might find appro-
priate. The ITU argues that these employees are typographic rather
that lithographic employees who should be excluded. We need not
resolve this classification dispute for, as Loheide-Caswell'"s employees
have not been covered by the contracts between the employer and the
Pressmen for the overall unit and have been separately bargained for
over the years, they cannot be the subject of the instant severance
petition.,
Therefore, the unit issue raised by the petition is whether em-
ployees of the five remaining" member-companies of the Employer-
Edward Hine & Co., Edward J. Smith, Printer, Paramount Printing
Co., Logan Printing Company, and Henry J. Ziegle-constitute a co-
hesive unit of lithographic production employees to which the Board
'The ITU does not seek to participate in any elections directed herein.
s These are : Ben Franklin Print Shop ; Carrigan & Young ; Gam Sales Company ;
Henniges & Company ; Peoria Typesetting Company ; Peoria Printing & Stationery Co. ;
and South Side Printing Co.
8 See Printing Industry of Seattle, Inc., 116 NLRB 1883, 1884.
. EMPLOYING PRINTERS OF PEORIA 1513
normally accords separate representation? The Board'has frequently
held that employees who utilize standard lithographic equipment,
and perform the usual duties and exercise the customary lithographic
skills used in the traditional lithographic process, form a cohesive
unit and are entitled to separate representation if they so desire s
We turn now to a consideration of whether the five member-
companies employ such employees.
Edward Hine & Co. regularly employs eight lithographic produc-
tion employees. Four of these are classified as offset pressmen. Three
of them spend all their time operating these presses. The fourth
spends 75 percent of his time operating this press and the balance
in running letterpress equipment. The remaining four employees
work exclusively performing the duties of cameraman, stripper, and
platemaker. In addition, a bindery room worker occasionally fills in
on the offset press, and a letterpress operator will be called upon to
spend approximately 25 percent of his time running an offset press.
Apart from the bindery room worker and the letterpress operator, no
other employees in' the plant perform lithographic production work.
Edward J. Smith, Printer, utilizes two offset presses. It has no
platemaking equipment -but purchases its plates from a local engraver
and its photosetting from another concern. This company employs a
full-time offset pressman and' another offset pressman who spends a
majority of his time operating this -press while the balance is spent
performing letterpress work.
'Paramount Printing Co. einploys_a platemaker who spends all his
time performing photographic, platemaking, and stripping duties; an
offset pressman who works exclusively on offset press equipment; and
an employee who devotes 80 percent of his time to operating the offset
press and the balance to running a letterpress. In addition, a letter-
press operator operates an offset' press 20 percent of the time when
needed. 'No other employee in the plant performs lithographic pro=
duction work.
Logan Printing Company produces practically all its work on offset
presses. It employs two cameramen, seven strippers, and two plate-
nlakers who work exclusively in these classifications. In addition, this
company employs 10 offset pressmen, of whom 7 devote* their full time
to offset press work. Of the remainder, two pressmen devote in excess,
of 90 percent of their time to offset work. The third divides his time
equally between an offset press 'and a letterpress. No other employees.
perform lithographic production duties.
7 In 195 the Petitioner ,and the, Employer _ consented to an election in Case No.
13-RC-4994 in a unit of lithographic 'production employees here sought by Petitioner'
(with the exception of Henry J. Ziegle which , did not employ such employees). The
Petitioner lost the election.
e See, e. g.,. Lord Baltimore Press, Incorporated, 128 NLRB 334.
1514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Henry J. Ziegle acquired an offset press a few weeks. before, the
hearing, having engaged exclusively in letterpress work in the past.
At present, it is training a letterpress operator to operate the offset
press. It is not known how much time this employee will devote to
offset press operation in the future.
The Employer and the Pressmen maintain that the Petitioner's re-
quested unit is not a traditional, lithographic production unit because
the employees therein perform both lithographic and letterpress
operations under a procedure of regular and continuous interchange.
Accordingly, they urge that this factor creates "unusual circum-
stances" 9 which require the Board to depart from the "general pat-
tern of its unit determination involving lithographic workers" and
which should prompt the finding, as in Pacific Press, Inc.," that such a
"combination" unit is inappropriate. In our opinion, reliance by the
Employer and the Pressmen on Pacific Press is misplaced. In that
case, the Board found a combined unit of offset pressmen and letter
pressmen, rather than separate units, appropriate because-of substan-
tial interchange between letterpressmen and offset pressmen under cir-
cumstances where an entire crew of 12 pressmen was shifted between
offset and letterpress for varying periods of time each week. No such
conditions -exist in the instant case, as the vast majority of the em-
ployees sought by the Petitioner consist of a basic crew engaged ex-
elusively in lithographic production work.
On the record before us, we find the companies here involved employ
employees who use standard lithographic equipment and exercise the
customary lithographic skills used in the traditional lithographic
process, and that these employees form a cohesive group of employees
who may be entitled to separate representation if they so desire. How-
ever, we shall, in .,accord with our usual policy, exclude those em-
ployees whose duties are not predominantly devoted to the, litho-
graphic -production processes." Moreover, as the record fails to dis-
close whether the pressman employed by Henry J. Ziegle devotes a
majority of his time operating the letterpress, we shall permit him to
vote subject to challenge.
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be conducted in the
following voting group of employees at the Employer's (Edward
Hine & Co., Edward J. Smith, Printer, Paramount Printing Co.,
Logan Printing Company, and Henry J. Ziegle) plants in Peoria,
Illinois :
a See Standard Printing & Lithograph4a Co., 114 NLRB 1439, 1440.
;166 NLRB 458. - -
n see Sutherland , Paper Company, , 122 .NLRB . 1284 , 1287. Those would , include..:
(1) The bindery room worker and the letterpress operator employed by Edward Hine &
Co. who spend 25 percent or less of their time operating the offset press ; ( 2) the letter-
press operator employed by Paramount . Printing Co. who spends only 20 percent of his
time on the offset press; and (3 ) the pressman employed .by Logan Printing Company
who divides his .time between the offset and letter presses.
ERNEST RENDA CONTRACTING CO., INC., ETC . 1515
All lithographic production employees, excluding all other em-
-ployees, office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen
and guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.12
If a majority of the employees in the above-described voting group
vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have voted for separate
representation, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit. If a ma-
jority of the- employees in the voting group vote for the Pressmen,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of
the overall unit now represented by the Pressmen, and the Regional
Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
v The parties stipulated and we find that Bennet and Adams employed by Logan
Printing Company are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We shall therefore
exclude them.
Ernest Renda Contracting Co., Inc. and Nenna & Frain Co., Inc.'
and Local Union 14458 , District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, Independent, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-44930. March
23, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing. was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. His rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial` error and are affirmed.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers herein to -a three-member panel [Mem-
bers Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act 2
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Employer Companies moved to dismiss on the ground that their operations do
not meet the Board's jurisdictional standards . The two Companies are separately in-
corporated in New Jersey and maintain offices at a single location in New Jersey. Since
1957 they have performed work for various municipalities in Pennsylvania . They are
currently engaged in the construction of a sewer system in the town of East Stroudsburg,
Pennsylvania , under a joint contract . This contract ,. originally scheduled for completion
In, 18 months , is in the amount of $1,443,000. As the record shows that the Employer
Cmpanies : are.°New Jersey corporation's.-maintaining a, home. office in that State. and
performing services - in `excess' of $50 ,000 in-valuation in Pennsylvania 'outside their home
State, we find that they are engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction . Compare Local 176, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
etc. (Dimeo Construction Company ), 122 NLRB 980 , footnote 3.
130 NLRB No. 159.