Greater Syracuse Printing Employers' Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 20, 1962

140 N.L.R.B. 217 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

GREATER SYRACUSE PRINTING EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION 217
Greater Syracuse Printing Employers ' Association and Amal-
gamated Lithographers of America, Local 48, Petitioner.'
Case No. 3-RC-.3918. December 20, 1962
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William G. McGee, 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. Certain Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.2
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of all lithographic production
employees from a combined unit of letterpress, lithographic produc-
' As amended at the hearing.
2 Petitioner contends that the "Greater Syracuse Printing Employers Association" is a
multiemployer association composed of Salina Press, Inc, and Salina Repro Service, Inc.,
Pratt Printing Company, Inc, Onondaga Printing Company, Peerless Press , Inc, Kaufman
Press, Gafney Press , Inc., Trident Printing Corporation, and Syracuse University Press,
Inc , herein referred to by their corporate name or as Employer, and that the combined
operations of all these Employers warrants the assertion of jurisdiction even though some
of the Employers individually might not meet the Board' s jurisdictional criteria. For
the reasons set forth herein , we find that the individual Employers bargained and executed
labor agreements on an individual rather than a multiemployer basis The record dis-
closes and the parties stipulated that Salina Press, Inc, and Salina Repro Service, Inc.,
Pratt Printing Company, Inc, Onondaga Printing Company, Peerless Press, Inc, Kaufman
Press, and Trident Printing Corporation, within the preceding 12-month period , individu-
ally made purchases of materials directly and indirectly from points outside the State of
New York valued in excess of $50 ,000 We find that the foregoing Employers are engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act With respect to Gafney Press, Inc., the
parties agree that its total purchases during the period in question did not exceed $25,000,
and that , of its total sales valued at $75,000, less than $40,000 in value was sold directly
or indirectly to customers outside New York We find that this company does not meet
the Board ' s jurisdictional standards for the assertion of jurisdiction over it Regarding
Syracuse University Press, Inc , the parties agree that this company is a nonprofit non-
commercial membership corporation of which Syracuse University, an educational corpo-
ration in New York, is the sole member, and which is exclusively engaged in printing
scientific and liters my materials fm the University The parties are in apparent agree-
ment that SNracu\v Fniverrity Pie,,, Inc, rodividuall.N does not fall within the Board's
jurisdiction
I International Printing Pressmen and Assistant's Union Local 66, AFL-CIO, herein
called 11'I', interiened as the iecogmzed bargaining representative of the employees in
the unit involved Syracuse Typographical Union Local 55, AFI.-CIO, herein called the
ITU. intervened foi the sole purpose of preserving the integrity of the units of typesetting
and linotype employees for which it has bargained with the Employees, but which are not
sought by Petitioner.
140 NLRB No. 30.
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion, typesetting, linotype, and bindery employees "employed by mem-
bers Pratt, Salina, Gafney, Trident, Peerless, Kaufman, Onondaga,
and Syracuse of the Greater Syracuse Printing Employers' Associa-
tion," excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
watchmen and guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. In
the alternative, Petitioner is willing to represent the lithographic
production employees in separate units at each of the above-named
Employers' establishments. The IPP, Salina ,4 Pratt, Kaufman,
Onondaga, Peerless, and Trident contend that no multiemployer as-
sociation named "Greater Syracuse Printing Employers' Association"
exists and that only single-employer units of lithographic production
employees are appropriate. The ITU, Syracuse, and Gafney took no
unit positions.
IPP has represented the employees of approximately 21 employers
in Syracuse, New York, who engage in what is known as "commercial"
printing work. Of these employers, only the eight alleged members
of the "Greater Syracuse Printing Employers' Association" employ
lithographic production employees. From 1959 to 1962, the IPP and
all 21 "commercial" printing employers have been parties to individual
collective-bargaining agreements covering each employer's comple-
ment of employees.-' In the case of the eight Employers involved
here, the individual contracts included lithographic production em-
ployees, letterpressmen, and typesetting, linotype, and bindery em-
ployees. The bargaining pattern in these years proceeded as follows :
A "scale" committee of IPP drew up a list of contract proposals
and changes which were mailed to all commercial printing employers
together with notification of the time and place for the first bargaining
meeting. Individual employers would present themselves at the meet-
ing place to express their individual views and to make their own
counterproposals, with no employer committee or spokesman desig-
nated or authorized to speak on their behalf. So far as appears, very
few employers ever attended these meetings, and few, if any, attended
the same meetings at the same time. No notes or minutes of the meet-
ings were kept and no agreement was ever reached between the parties
as a result of any meeting. At a later date, the IPP committee would
discuss among its members the consensus of employer positions and
would attempt to fashion contract terms which it believed would be
acceptable to all the employers. When these terms were embodied in
a complete agreement, the contracts were mailed to the individual
employers for approval. No discussion was held among the various
employers as to the acceptability of the agreement prior to its exe-
d Salina Repro Service , Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Salina Press, Inc A mo-
tion to add the former to the list of eight Employers named in the petition was granted
at the hearing without opposition . Hence, Salina refers to both Salina Press , Inc , and
Salina Repro Service, Inc
5 There is no current contract here asserted as a bar.
GREATER SYRACUSE PRINTING EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION 219
cution. The major substantive terms of the contract which the em-
ployers executed were identical. However, where individual shop
conditions warranted special variances, these were individually nego-
tiated by IPP with the employers concerned. Finally, there is no
record evidence that any multiemployer association known as the
"Greater Syracuse Printing Employers' Association" exists.
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record before us, we
are unable to conclude that the Employers involved herein engaged
in multiemployer bargaining as members of the "Greater Syracuse
Printing Employers' Association" or otherwise evinced any intent to
be bound by any agreement negotiated by any commercial printing
employer or group of employers in Syracuse on their behalf.' We
therefore find that the lithographic production employees which
Petitioner seeks on a multiemployer basis are not part of a multi-
employer bargaining unit, and that such a unit here is inappropriate.
It follows, then, that separate units of lithographic production em-
ployees at each of the Employers' plants may be appropriate.
As indicated above, the Petitioner alternatively contends for such
separate units. The parties do not dispute that the individuals in-
volved at each of the Employer's plants perform offset camera work,
offset platemaking, and offset press duties which classify them as
lithographic production employees of a type which the Board has
held are entitled to separate representation.' However, a question
arises as to whether separate elections should be directed in such units
at each plant.
We are administratively advised, and Petitioner apparently con-
cedes, that its showing of interest in the separate units at Onondaga,
Peerless, Kaufman, Gafney, Trident, and Syracuse is insufficient to
support an election in those units. Moreover, the operations of Gafney
and Syracuse do not fall within the Board standards for the assertion
of jurisdiction. Finally, it appears that Gafney and Peerless each
employ but one lithographic production employee," a number insuffi-
cient for the Board to certify as an appropriate bargaining unit.'
Accordingly, for each and all of the foregoing reasons, we shall dismiss
the petition insofar as it seeks elections in separate lithographic pro-
duction units at these plants.
Salina and Pratt have heretofore been found to be engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act. As each Employer employs
lithographic production employees who are entitled to separate repre-
sentation in a separate unit, and as the Petitioner's showing of interest
6 See Houston Automobile Dealers Association , 132 NLRB 947.
7 See Allen, Lane & Scott, et at , 137 NLRB 223
8 Of the four individuals engaged in lithographic production work at Peerless, three
(the Corcoran brothers ) are supervisors within the meaning of the Act In addition, they
are directors and stockholders of the corporation.
0 See At & Dick's Steak House , Inc., 129 NLRB 1207, 1208.
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is sufficient therein, we find that the following constitute appropriate
units for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
Unit A. All lithographic production employees employed by
Salina Press, Inc. and Salina Repro Service, Inc., Syracuse, New
York, excluding all office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, watchmen and guards, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Unit B. All lithographic production employees employed by
Pratt Printing Company, Inc., Syracuse, New York, excluding
all office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen
and guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Sewell Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-
5016. December 20, 1962
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF THIRD ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election
issued by the Board on August 9, 1962,1 a second election by secret
ballot was conducted by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region
among the employees in the appropriate unit. Upon the conclusion
of the election the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which
showed that of approximately 1,338 eligible voters, 345 cast votes for,
and 931 cast votes against, the Petitioner, 8 cast challenged ballots, and
4 ballots were void. Thereafter the Petitioner filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation, and on September 28, 1962, issued
his report on objections in which he found the objections to be without
merit and recommended that they be overruled. The Petitioner filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report and recommenda-
tions dealing with preelection propaganda which was distributed to
eligibles during the critical period 2
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 Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
i 138 NLRB 66.
2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, the Board adopts pro forma the Regional Director's
recommendation that objections Nos. 5 and 6 be overruled.
140 NLRB No. 24.