128 N.L.R.B. 334 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

Lord Baltimore Press, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 26, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 334 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Operations Manager STORE LOCATIONS AS FOLLOWS 3055 WEST 83D STREET 3110 WEST 63D STREET 8401 WEST GRAND AVENUE, RIVER GROVE 5711 NORTH MILWAUKEE AVENUE ROUTE 14, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Assistant Operations Manager Secretary to Operations Manager Guards and Watchmen 3500 WEST GRAND AVENUE Operations Manager Service Administration Manager Guards and Watchmen 1750 WEST BELMONT AVENUE Warehouse Manager Warehouse Supervisors (one each for day and night) Guards and Watchmen 8311 WEST NORTH AVENUE Director of Distribution Assistant Director of Distribution Secretaries to Director and Assistant Director of Distribution and Superintendent of Warehouse Manager-Furniture Office Manager-Appliance Office Assistant Managers-Office (three employees) Accounts Payable Supervisor Head Cashier Traffic Manager Assistant Traffic Manager Manager Furniture Service Assistant Manager Furniture Service Manager Appliance Service Assistant Manager Appliance Service Manager Inventory Assistant Manager Inventory Guards and Watchmen Mail Drivers and Couriers Lord Baltimore Press, Incorporated and Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union , subordinate to the International Print- ing Pressmen & Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL- CIO, Petitioner Lord Baltimore Press, Incorporated and Local 90, Amalgamated Lithographers of America , Petitioner. Cases Nos. 18-IBC-4224 and 18-RC-4233. July 26, 1960 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Kenneth W. Haan, 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 Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. 128 NLRB No. 40. LORD BALTIMORE PRESS, INCORPORATED 335 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 employees of the Employer. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate units : The Petitioner in Case No. 18-RC-4233, hereinafter called the Lithographers, seeks a unit of all lithographic or offset production employees at the Employer's Clinton, Iowa, plant. The Employer, the Petitioner in Case No. 18-RC-4224, hereinafter referred to as the Pressmen, and the Intervenor, International Brotherhood of Pulp & Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Pulp Sulphite Workers, all contend that only an overall produc- tion and maintenance unit is appropriate. There is no history of collective bargaining. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of folding paper boxes and cartons for use chiefly as food and drug containers. The Employer prints the customer's design on the boxboard after which the Boards are cut and creased. Printing is done by letterpress or offset (lithographic) processes at the present time. A third method, rotogravure printing, is also expected to be employed in the future. The Employer's lithographic equipment consists of three standard Harris offset presses with the machines having two-color, five-color, and six-color capabilities. An additional six-color Harris offset press is now on order. In addition to its lithographic equipment, the Em- ployer has two letterpresses which are located in a section of the plant adjacent to the offset operation. The Lithographers contend that they are seeking their traditional unit consisting of all lithographic production employees, excluding all others. The record discloses that classifications of employees en- gaged in the lithographic operation include platemakers, pressmen, apprentice pressmen, feeder operators, inkmakers, and various kinds of helpers. These employees utilize the standard lithographic equip- ment and perform the usual duties and exercise the customary litho- graphic skills used in the traditional lithographic process. The Employer does not have a formal apprenticeship training program. However, with the possible exception of the press helpers and general helpers, the lithographic employees either have had extensive previous training in this type of work or have had considerable on-the-job' training, accompanied by classroom instruction leading to a certificate of journeyman pressman, after at least 4 years of preparation. The 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Board has frequently considered the skills and techniques incident to lithography and has held that employees engaged in the litho- graphic process such as those involved here form a cohesive unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.' However, the Employer opposes the establishment of a separate lithographic unit because it contends that it has a highly integrated production process, there is a substantial amount of interchange among all its employees, and the pattern of bargaining in the folding box industry is in large measure on an industrial basis. The Em- ployer recognizes that Board precedent and the criteria of American Potash 2 support the conclusion that a separate craft unit of litho- graphic production employees is appropriate. Nevertheless, it argues that the Fourth Circuit's decision in the Pittsburgh Plate Glass case 3 requires separate consideration in each case as to whether the particu- lar employer's operations are such as to warrant application of the Board's National Tube 4 doctrine. The Pressmen, who in general agree with the Employer, also contend that the amount of interchange here renders a unit of lithographic employees inappropriate under the Board's decision in Pacific Press.' We find no merit in the contentions of the Employer and the Press- men. With reference to the Employer's reliance on Pittsburgh Plate Glass, the Board has determined, with all due respect to the opinion of the court in that case, to adhere to its policy as expressed in American Potash, supra.s Moreover, even if we were to consider applying the National Tube doctrine here, the record fails to afford an adequate basis for such application. Thus, with regard to the alleged highly integrated production process of the Employer, it is clear that the plant could operate effectively even though the litho- graphic section was not in use. Indeed the record discloses that there was a period of time when at least two of the offset presses were not in operation and production was not materially affected thereby. With respect to a pattern of bargaining in the industry on a plantwide basis, there is a paucity of evidence in the record upon which to premise an affirmative finding to that effect. Finally, we turn to the question of the amount of interchange of employees which the Pressmen and the Employer insists is so sub- stantial as to preclude the establishment of a separate lithographic unit. The record shows that there is some interchange of personnel, but that it is essentially sporadic, irregular, and on a temporary rather 1 Guardian Printing and Litho Corp, 125 NLRB 9; Ad-Press Corporation, 119 NLRB 564; McCall Corporation, 118 NLRB 13.92, Beckman Instruments, Inc (Berkeley Divi- sion) , 116 NLRB 963, Holden Business Forms Company, 114 NLRB 668 2 American Potash if Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418 'NLRB. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, 270 F. 2d 167 (CA. 4), cert. denied' 361 U S 943. 4 National Tube Company, 76 NLRB 1199 'Pacific Press, Inc, 66 NLRB 458 GE. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 126 NLRB 885, footnote 3. LORD BALTIMORE PRESS, INCORPORATED 337 than a regular operational basis. Thus, the greatest amount of inter- change occurred during the period when the Employer's two offset presses were inoperative. There is evidence in the record of a survey made with regard to the interchange of employees during the period from November 2, 1959, to February 11, 1960, which included the time when the offset presses had broken down. Even during this period, the total amount of interchange appears to have been only about 5 percent of the total work hours involved. This is far from the kind or degree of interchange present in the Pacific Press case, supra, which persuaded the Board that a unit of lithographic employees was not appropriate. In that case, the Board found a single crew regularly and continuously worked on both letterpresses and offset presses. "Depending upon business exigencies, these employees work on each type of press for varying periods of time during the course of a week. They may work the major portion of 1 week on newspaper presses, and the next week the reverse might be true" (66 NLRB at 462). That is not the situation in the present case. In view of the foregoing, we find that the employees sought by the Lithographers are skilled craftsmen who may, if they so desire, con- stitute a separate appropriate group. However, a unit of production and maintenance employees including the lithographic production employees, would also be appropriate. Accordingly, we shall direct separate elections in the following voting groups of employees at the Employer's Clinton, Iowa, plant : Group 1: All production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical employees,' but excluding all lithographic production employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, watch- men, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. Group 2: All employees engaged in lithographic production work, including pressmen, feeder operators, platemakers, inkmakers, and their apprentices, trainees, and helpers, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, watclmlen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act." s The Employer would exclude two department clerks, Dolores Huster and Millie Carlisle, as confidential employees These women work in the plant offices of their respective departmental foremen, doing typing , filing , and answering the telephone They also have access to files concerning applicants for employment or other personnel data They are hourly paid and are subject to the same benefits and working conditions as other produc- tion workers As these clerks do not assist or act in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate , determine , and effectuate management policies in the field of labor rela- tions, we find, contrary to the Employer ' s contention , that they are not confidential employees within the meaning of Board decisions We shall therefore include them in the unit as plant cleiical employees Dayton Aviation Radio d Equipment Corporation, Dare, Inc, 124 NLRB 306, Lilliston Implement Company , 121 NLRB 868, 870 As we find that Nancy walwer, who works under the supervisor of the finishing depart- ment, keeping production records and performing other clerical duties , is clearly a plant clerical , we also include her in the production unit 8 The Employer would include John Ross , whose title is floor supervisor on the first shift Ross works with some five helpers who are engaged in repiling printed matter Ross " breaks in" new helpers and spends about 50 percent of his time doing the same 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We shall place the names of the Pressmen and the Pulp Sulphite Workers on the ballot in the election among the employees in voting group 1, and the Lithographers, the Pulp Sulphite Workers,' and the Pressmen on the ballot in the election among the employees in voting group 2. If a majority of the employees in voting group 2 select the Lithog- raphers, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elections directed herein is hereby instructed to issue a certification of represen- tatives to the Lithographers for such unit, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. However, if a majority of the employees in voting group 2 does not vote for the Lithographers, those employees will appropriately be included with the employees in voting group 1 and their votes will be pooled with those in voting group 1.10 The aforesaid Regional Di- rector is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by the majority of the employees in voting group 1 or in the pooled group, as the case may be, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] work as the helpers, also spending some time cutting stock on a cutting machine. He has no authority to hire, discipline, or discharge, is hourly paid, and all significant decisions on personnel matters are made by the general foreman We find that Ross is not a super- visor and include him in the unit. 0 Although it does not wish to represent the lithographic production employees as a separate unit, it is clear that the Pulp Sulphite Workers wishes to represent these employees as part of its requested production and maintenance unit. We shall, therefore, place the Pulp Sulphite Workers on the ballot in voting group 2 In the event it does not wish its name to be placed on this ballot, it may, upon prompt notice to the Regional Director, request that its name be omitted from the ballot in voting group 2 10 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner- the votes for the labor organization seeking a separate unit in voting group 2 shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the labor organizations seeking to represent a production and maintenance unit. All other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for representation by the unions seeking the more comprehensive group or for no union. Western Farmers Association and Cannery Warehousemen, Food Processors, Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 809, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers of America and Miscellaneous Drivers Local Union No. 223, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioners. Cases Nos. 36-RC-1497 and 36-RC-1502. July W, 1960 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed under Section,9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Arthur J_ 128 NLRB No. 33.