Frye & Smith, Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 49 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

FRYE & SMITH, LTD. 49
bership rules and discipline. Furthermore, the employees' attempt to
repudiate the Union by a decertification proceeding demonstrates that
loss of membership was of no significance to them; consequently their
expulsion from the Union could hardly be an effective deterrent
against resorting to the Board. For these reasons, we conclude that
the policy underlying the exception created in Skura is inapplica-
ble here.
Accordingly, we find that the Union's action in expelling Lohr and
Lee did not prevent a free choice by the employees in the election.
Since there are no other grounds urged to invalidate the election, we
conclude that the election should not be set aside. As the tally shows
that the Union has obtained a majority of the valid ballots cast, we
shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees
at the Employer's Tawas City, Michigan, facility.]
Frye & Smith , Ltd. and San Diego Typographical Union No.
221, International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 21-RC-9094. February 15, 1965
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 Hearing Officer Albert J.
Tomigal. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Thereafter, the Em-
ployer filed a brief with the Regional Director and the Petitioner and
Intervenor filed briefs with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Jenkins].
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.
'Local 64L, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union , AFL-CIO. was
permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest in the employees involved
herein.
151 NLRB No. 7.
753-133-66-vol. 151-5
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The Intervenor has for many years bargained with a multiem-
ployer association for a unit which includes the Employer's litho-
graphic employees. In January 1963, and again in August of that
year, the Employer and the Intervenor agreed to extend the coverage
of the lithographic contract with some modifications, to the employees
involved herein 2 The petition was filed on July 10, 1964, during an
interval between the expiration of one contract and the execution of
another. During that interval, the Employer and the Intervenor
agreed to maintain the provisions of the expired agreement in effect
for a period of 30 days or until a new contract was signed, whichever
was sooner . We reject the contention of the Intervenor and the Em-
ployer that the stop-gap agreement, in effect at the time the petition
was filed, operates as a bar to the petition.'
We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation 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 Employer operates a lithographic printing establishment in
San Diego, California. Before 1963, the Employer let out the work
of composing raw copy into printed copy (reproduction proof) to
firms employing conventional "hot metal" typesetters. In Janu-
ary 1963, the Employer installed its own linofilm equipment, an elec-
tronic "cold type" typesetting process,' to prepare printed copy from
raw copy at its plant. The Petitioner seeks to represent employees in
the Employer's linofilm department. Both the Intervenor and the
Employer contend that the linofilm department has been added by
accretion to the existing contract unit and that there is no basis for
its separate representation.
The linofilm department occupies one-half of the building adjacent
to the Employer's main plant. There is very little interchange be-
tween employees in the linofilm and other departments, although the
Employer expressed the hope that in the future some darkroom work
in the linofilm department would be performed in peak periods by
other personnel. The linofilm department is separately supervised
by a working foreman who is also responsible for the maintenance of
the equipment. In addition to the foreman, the record shows there
are nine employees working in the department on two shifts, consist-
2 This extension of the contract was not on a multlemployer basis. Consequently, and
because the other employer in the multiemployer unit employs no "cold type " employees,
we find no merit in the Employer ' s and Intervenor 's contention that the petition should
be dismissed because it does not name the multiemployer association as the employer in-
volved herein.
3 White Provision Company . 116 NLRB 1552, and Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and
Paper Manufacturers , 121 NLRB 990 , 993-994.
4 For a description of "cold type " and "hot metal" processes , see Photype, Inc , 145
NLRB 1268, and Philadelphia Typographical Union , Local No 2 ( Philadelphia Inquirer,
Dn,ision of Triangle Publications, Inc ), 142 NLRB 32, 37-38
FRYE & SMITH, LTD. 51
ing of four keyboard operators , three floormen or tape processors, a
proofreader, and an equipment maintenance trainee. All linofilm per-
sonnel are being trained to perform other phases of the department's
operations beside their basic duties.
The record indicates that linofilm keyboard operators possess es-
sentially the same skills as linotype operators despite the fact that
the linofilm is a "cold-type " process. There was testimony that an
experienced typist could learn to operate either machine very quickly,
but that it would take years to become proficient in its use. Keyboard
operators, like linotypists, must be familiar with printers' symbols
and type faces, be able to recognize and produce good-looking printed
copy and to operate very complex machines to achieve this end. It
appears that the linofilm department floormen mark up raw copy for
the keyboard operator, a. characteristic composing-room skill, and also
process the negative produced by the linofilm photo unit in the dark-
room. The proofreader would appear to perform the same function
and possess the same skills as a proofreader in a traditional composing
room. The linofilm maintenance man exercises mechanical skill
which, while not identical to, has its counterpart in traditional com-
posing rooms.
The Iiifervenor,has represented, not a plantwide unit, but a tradi-
tional lithographic production unit among the Employer's employees,
excluding bindery employees who are separately represented, and
creative artists who are unrepresented. We cannot agree with the
Intervenor's contention that the employees in the linofilm department
have been included by accretion in its lithographic unit. A litho-
graphic production unit is properly limited to those employees who
are engaged in the lithographic process. The Board has consistently
excluded cutters and bindery employees at the finishing end of the
process,5 and employees performing composing room functions, such
as linotype'operators and proofreaders, at the beginning of the proc-
cess.s Similarly, the Board has excluded employees operating "cold
type" equipment from a lithographic unit.'
The linofilm employees who are sought in this case possess skills
many of which are substantially equivalent to those found in tradi-
tional "hot metal" composing rooms, in performing the characteristic
composing room function of transforming raw copy into printed copy.
That their skills and duties are essentially different from those of
persons engaged in the lithographic production process is demonstrated
'Jack Gordon, et al , d/b/a Ivy Hill Lithograph Company , et at., 121 NLRB 831, foot-
note 6; Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers , 94 NLRB 477, 481 ;
St Louis Lithographing Company, 114 NLRB 24, 25
Ivy Hill Lithograph Company, supra ; The Madison Company , 92 NLRB 914, over-
ruling 91 NLRB 135 ; Josten Manufacturing Company, et at., d/b/a American Yearbook
Company, 11 NLRB 189 ; Pacific Coast Association etc, supra.
7 Burroughs Corporation , The Todd Company Division, 139 NLRB 347.
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the fact that in the instant case the Employer sought without suc-
cess to recruit qualified personnel for its linofilm department from
among its lithographic employees and from the Intervenor itself and
finally had to man its new department mainly with employees ex-
perienced in composing rooms. Accordingly, we find that the linofilm
employees are not engaged in the lithographic production process and
could not, therefore, be added by accretion to the unit represented by
the Intervenor."
We also find that the employees involved herein are a distinctive
group of employees with a sufficient community of interest and skills to
constitute an appropriate unit. We are mindful of the fact that tech-
nological changes in composition methods have to some extent modified
the skills required of composition employees, but we are satisfied that
these employees exercise sufficient skills in common with those employed
in traditional "hot metal" composing rooms to be entitled, like the
latter, to separate representation.'
There remains for consideration the unit placement of certain em-
ployees in the unit petitioned for.
Both the Petitioner and the Employer take the position that the
proofreader should be excluded from the unit. We disagree. Proof-
readers are included in traditional composing room units,1° and we
see no reason for excluding the proofreader here in view of her com-
munity of interest with other employees in the linofilm department.
The record shows that the foreman exercises general supervision over
the linofilm department and clearly has authority to hire employees for
the department. We find that he is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act and shall exclude him.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All employees in the linofilm department at the Employer's San
Diego plant, including keyboard operators, floormen or tape processors,
proofreaders, linofilm maintenance employees and trainees, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
s New Orleans Typographical 'Union No . 17, International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO (E P. Rivas , Inc.), 147 NLRB 191, a Section 10 ( k) proceeding in which the Board
awarded "cold type" work to a lithographic union, is not pertinent because in that case the
Board relied upon the employer 's assignment and other factors which do not play a part
in making unit determinations in representation cases.
Y We do not here decide the question left open in Photype, Inc., 145 NLRB 1268, and in
Leslie F. Clarke & Co., Inc., et al., 147 NLRB 1240, whether a separate unit of "cold
type" employees may be appropriate where the employer uses both "hot metal " and "cold
type" processes.
10 See George Grady Press, Inc , 74 NLRB 1372, 1374