Lee Enterprises, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 745 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

JOURNAL-TIMES CO.
The Journal-Times Company, a Division of Lee
Enterprises, Incorporated , Employer-Petitioner
and Graphic Arts International Union Local No.
254, AFL-CIO and Racine Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Local No. 127, affiliated with the
International Printing and Graphic Communica-
tions Union, AFL-CIO. Case 30-RM-271
March 15, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION.
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held on November 20 and 21, 1973, at
Racine, Wisconsin, before Hearing Officer George
Strick of the National Labor Relations Board.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series
8, as amended, the Regional Director for Region 30,
on December 3, 1973, transferred this case to the
Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer and the
Graphic Arts International Union Local No. 254,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called GAIU, filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
On the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing 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 petition, as amended, seeks an election in a
unit of certain employees of the Employer at its
Racine, Wisconsin, plant described as follows:
All employees in the press department of the
Employer engaged in the preparation of photo-
sensitive printing plates for use on the Employer's
newspaper web printing presses including camera
1 These employees are not involved in this proceeding
2 Prior to September 4, 1972, the engraving department employees were
represented by Racine Local No 254 of the Lithographers and Photoen-
209 NLRB No. 104
745
work and the development of negatives in the
platemaking process; stripping of negatives,
opaquing, masking, color separation performed
by masking; developing, burning or otherwise
finishing the plate; curving, crimping, punching
or other procedures necessary for mounting the
finished plate on a saddle or plate carrier;
positioning the mounted plates on the Employer's
newspaper web printing presses and operation of
the presses; excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, professional employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act and all other employees
of the Employer.
The GAIU contends that the overall unit requested
by the Employer is inappropriate because it com-
bines traditionally separate craft units. The GAIU
further contends that only separate units of photoen-
graving employees and of pressroom employees
would be appropriate, and, in the event that is so
found, asks to be on the ballot only in the
photoengravers unit. However, if the unit described
in the Employer's petition is found appropriate, the
GAIU wishes to be on the ballot.
The Racine Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Local No. 127, affiliated with the International
Punting and Graphic Communications Union,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Pressmen, agrees with
the Employer's unit position and contends that only
an overall pressroom unit is appropriate. However, if
separate units as requested by the GAIU are found
appropriate, the Pressmen wish is to be on the ballot
only in the pressroom unit.
The Journal-Times Company is a Delaware corpo-
ration engaged in the publication of a daily newspa-
per in Racine, Wisconsin. Pnor to March 1, 1973,
each of the Employer's mechanical departments, as
well as the composing room, constituted a separate
bargaining unit. Thus, the composing room employ-
ees were represented by Racine Typographical
Union 324; 1 the stereotyping department employees
by Milwaukee Stereotypers' Union No. 90, hereinaft-
er called Stereotypers; the pressroom employees by
the Pressmen; and the engraving department em-
ployees by the GAIU.2 The Employer's collective-
bargaining relationships with these craft unions
spanned a period of more than 20 years. The latest
Stereotypers contract with the Employer by its terms
was due to expire on June 30, 1973. However, on
March 1, 1973, the Stereotypers acquiesced in the
Employer's decision, discussed below, to eliminate
the stereotyping department. The Employer's con-
tract with the Pressmen expired on August 9, 1973,
gravers International Union. On that date the Lithographers and Photoen-
gravers International Union merged with the International Brotherhood of
Bookbinders to form the Graphic Arts International Union , AFL-CIO.
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and its agreement with the GAIU expired on
January 31, 1972.
Until March 1973 the Employer utilized the
traditional hot metal process in its printing opera-
tion. In this process, news and editorial material is
reproduced by means of metal plugs of type which
are arranged into lines and used to make impressions
on celluloid mats produced by a stereotype depart-
ment. Illustrative material is photoengraved onto
metal sheets, which are used instead of metal type to
impress the mats. The mats, in turn, receive an
injection of hot metal from which a semicylindrical
plate is formed. It is this plate which is fastened to
the press and used to do the actual printing of a
newspaper page under the hot metal process.
For some months prior to December 1972, the
Employer's management officials had been consider-
ing conversion of both its composition department
and its pressroom operation to new processes known,
respectively, as cold-type and direct printing. Under
the cold-type process, which can be utilized in
conjunction with either the traditional punting
operation, or the newer direct printing process, the
use of metal type in composition is eliminated.
Instead, the newspaper page is composed by pasting
up copy reproduced onto paper by a photocomposi-
tion machine. This page is then photoengraved onto
a metal sheet which can be used to make the celluloid
mat used in the traditional printing process. Under
the direct printing method, however, the product of
the photocomposition machine is photoengraved
onto a thin metal plate whose surface is coated with a
chemical emulsion. This emulsion reacts under
certain light frequencies to accomplish the photoen-
graving without the use of acids or any other strong
chemicals. Because of its tensile strength and
flexibility the sheet on which the photoengraving is
produced can then be bent into the requisite
semicylindrical shape and affixed to the press
directly by means of a device called a saddle. The
need for the mats, required in the formation of the
semicylindrical plates used in the traditional printing
method, is thereby eliminated.
On December 1, 1972, the Employer announced to
its employees that it would convert both its compos-
ition room and its press operation to the new
processes effective March 1, 1973, and that as a
result of the changeover the stereotype and photoen-
graving departments would be eliminated. The
announcement further stated that a new press
department would be formed which would combine
3 The services previously performed by the stereotype department were
no longer needed because celluloid mats are not used in the direct punting
method . At the hearing , the Stereotypers expressly disclaimed any interest
in one department the functions previously per-
formed by the pressroom and the engraving depart-
ments,3 and that all employees in the then existing
press, stereotype, and photoengraving departments
(collectively known as the mechanical departments)
would be eligible for training courses in the new
methods and could apply for positions in the new
department. At the time of the announcement there
were nine employees in the pressroom, four-in the
stereotyping department, and four in the engraving
department, all of whom applied for jobs in the new
press department.
As part of its conversion operation the Employer
extensively remodeled its pressroom in the basement
of its plant. A new floor was built and the room was
subdivided by a new wall in order to provide a
contiguous platemaking area for the performance of
photoengraving and plate production work, which
had previously been performed in the engraving
department located on the second floor of the
building.
In January and February 1973 the Employer held a
series of training sessions which were attended by all
of the employees in the mechanical departments. On
February 22, 1973, the Employer announced its
selection of employees for the new press depart-
ment.4 Of the 12 employees hired for the new
department 9 were from the old pressroom, 2 from
the stereotyping department, and I from the pho-
toengraving department. Three of these 12 have
retired or resigned since March 1, 1973, leaving a
press department complement of 9 employees as of
the date of the hearing in this proceeding.
As a result of their training, every employee in the
new department is skilled in every job function
performed in the pressroom, including the contigu-
ous platemaking area. These jobs are rotated among
the employees daily and include making the printing
plates, affixing them to the press, preparing paper for
the press, and operating and maintaining the press
itself. On an average day, two press department
employees are generally assigned to the platemaking
area: one for an entire shift and the other for
approximately half of a shift.
The entire press department including the plate-
making area is under the immediate supervision of
the man in charge, Floyd Welch, who makes the
daily job assignments and directs the work of the
department.
The GAIU contends that the overall unit of
pressroom employees is inappropriate and that only
separate units of photoengraving and pressroom
employees are appropriate. In support of this
in this proceeding
4 There is no allegation that this selection was in any way motivated by
antiunion considerations.
JOURNAL-TIMES CO.
contention it cites Board decisions holding that
employees in the various crafts involved in the
printing business , including photoengraving, are
entitled to representation in separate bargaining
units determined along craft lines .5 The GAIU also
argues that the photoengraving process under the
direct printing method , although somewhat simpli-
fied and streamlined , still utilizes the same basic
skills and techniques of photography, etching,
finishing, and related tasks that were required by the
traditional printing method and that , therefore, the
craft distinctions between photoengraving and press-
room work have not been obliterated . Finally, the
GAIU points out that the Employer 's witnesses
testified that the rotation of jobs within the press
department is part of the Employer's "intensive
program of cross-training" in the various jobs
performed in the department and contends that
when the training program is complete the Employer
will in all likelihood assign certain employees to do
platemaking on a regular basis.
The Employer and the Pressmen contend that only
a single overall press department unit is appropriate
in the circumstances of this case . We agree with their
contention.
The record clearly establishes that all of the
pressroom employees perform all of the jobs in the
press department . They are all trained in platemak-
ing and regularly work in that area from time to time.
The record further establishes that all employees in
the press department share a community of interest.
Thus, all employees are under the same supervision,
are covered by the same pension and insurance
plans, and, except for the man in charge and his two
assistants , receive the same wages . All of the press
department employees enjoy the same amount of
annual vacation time and sick leave , have the same
holidays , and use the same locker room, reserved for
the press department only. Further, all the employees
use the same lunchroom , bar, and dining room,
which are open to all of the Employer's employees.
The above facts readily distinguish the present case
from the cases relied on by the GAIU in support of
its contentions , namely, American -Republican, Inc.,
supra, Garden Island Publishing Co., Ltd., supra, and
Sufsun Co., Inc., supra, in which the Board found that
employees who performed photoengraving work for
newspapers constituted a distinct craft unit and were
entitled to separate representation. Those cases
involved newspapers utilizing the traditional printing
process in which separate craft functions could be
readily identified. The employees in the separate
units found appropriate in those cases devoted their
747
working time almost exclusively to the work of a
particular craft under separate craft supervision.
In the instant case, on the other hand, there is daily
job interchange among all employees in the press
department, common supervision, and all employees
are trained to perform and do perform all of the job
functions in the entire department. Although the
GAIU contends that, at some future time, specific
employees may be assigned to do platemaking
exclusively, no evidence to this effect was adduced at
the hearing and the record does not indicate that the
Employer has any intention of altering its present
system of job rotation in the foreseeable future.
Finally, we find that there is no ascertainable
photoengraving unit at the present time, inasmuch as
the platemaking jobs are rotated daily among all
employees in the press department. Therefore, there
are no identifiable employees who presently devote
all of their time or even most of their time to
performance of photoengraving work. In these
circumstances, we find that the separate units
requested by the GAIU are inappropriate. Rather,
based on the factors discussed above, we find that,
under the circumstances of this case, only the overall
unit of all press department employees is appropri-
ate. Accordingly, we shall direct an election among
the employees in the following unit:
All employees in the press department of the
Employer engaged in the preparation of photo-
sensitive printing plates for use on the Employer's
newspaper web printing presses including camera
work and the development of negatives in the
platemaking process; stripping of negatives,
opaquing, masking, color separation performed
by masking; developing, burning or otherwise
finishing the plate; curving, crimping, punching
or other procedures necessary for mounting the
finished plate on a saddle or plate carrier;
positioning the mounted plates on the Employer's
newspaper web printing presses and operation of
the presses; excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, professional employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act, and all other employees
of the Employer.
There remains for our determination the issues of
whether: (1) "press-man-in-charge" Floyd Welch,
and his assistants, Edward Simon and Paul Hudec,
are supervisors as defined in Section 2(l 1) of the Act;
and (2) substitute employees Ralph Van Hazinga and
James Fleming, have sufficient regularity of employ-
ment to be eligible to vote.
With respect to Welch, as his title indicates, he is in
5 See, e.g., American -Republican, incorporated, 171 NLRB 43. Sufsun Co,
Inc., 174 NLRB 977: Garden Island Publishing Co., Ltd, 154 NLRB 697
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charge of and directs the operations of the entire
press department. The record shows that he has
authority, on behalf of the Employer, to effectively
recommend that employees be hired or fired. Indeed,
at the time of the Employer's reorganization, he
recommended which employees should be hired for
the new press department and these recommenda-
tions were followed by the Employer. In addition,
Welch prepares the daily work assignment sheets,
establishes shift hours, grants time off, authorizes
overtime, and hires substitute pressmen when neces-
sary. Based on these factors we find that Welch is a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act and that, therefore, he is ineligible to vote in the
election.
As to Hudec and Simon, the record indicates that,
while they substitute for Welch in his absence, they
do not have the same authority he does. Thus, Welch
testified without contradiction that when he is not
present he leaves a list of instructions for his
assistants and that, if any problems arise with respect
to discipline, his assistants are expected to contact
him before taking any action. It therefore appears
that Hudec and Simon do not exercise independent
judgment when they substitute for Welch. Further-
more, Welch testified without contradiction that
every employee in the department is fully qualified to
act as an assistant "press-man-in-charge." The fact
that Simon and Hudec receive higher wages than
other nonsupervisory employees does not of itself
constitute them supervisors. In view of the foregoing,
we find that the record evidence fails to establish that
Simon and Hudec are supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act and, hence, they are eligible to vote in
the election.6
With respect to substitute employees Van Hazinga
and Fleming, the uncontradicted evidence reveals
that both men worked at least I day per week from
January to March 1973, that they did not work at all
in the summer of 1973, and that they worked
approximately 1 to 3 days per week in October and
November 1973. The record further indicates that it
is uncertain how frequently the two men would be
asked to work after December 1973. Based on the
state of this record we are unable to determine at this
time what the frequency and regularity of employ-
ment of these individuals with the Employer will be
as of the voting eligibility date. Accordingly, we shall
permit Van Hazinga and Fleming to vote subject to
challenge.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
6 Cf. Goshen Luho, Inc, 1962 NLRB 977; D H Overmyer Co, Inc., 196
NLRB 789.