Manz Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 211 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of MAINZ CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and FRANKLIN UNION
#4 AND CHICAGO PRINTING. PRESSMEN'S UNION #3, BOTH AFFILI-
ATED WITH INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS
UNioi or`' ORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONERS
(ve-No. 13-RC-12.Decided August 2'7, 1948
, . -, DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held before a;
hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. The Intervenor's request for oral argument,
is hereby denied inasmuch as the record, in our opinion, adequately
presents the,issues and positions of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees.
of the Employer.
3. The alleged appropriate unit :
The Petitioners contend that the Board in its discretion under
Section 9 (b) (2) of the amended Act, should find that a single unit
of offset pressmen, feeders (assistants), and apprentices constitute an-
appropriate unit for bargaining purposes, separate and apart from
the other lithographic employees.
Local #4, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, hereinafter-
called the Intervenor, opposes a separate bargaining unit of offset
pressmen upon the ground that traditionally lithographic workers
bargain most appropriately and effectively in an industrial unit within
the lithographic process; and that offset pressmen and assistants are
lithographic workers whose conventional bargaining unit has included-
offset pressmen and assistants. The Intervenor further contends that
a separate bargaining unit of offset pressmen is inappropriate because
of the plant-wide-bargaining history which has existed in the industry-
for more than 33 years.
79 N. L. R. B., No. 31.
211
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer operates what is known in the printing (graphic
arts) industry as a combination or mixed plant. It maintains a print-
ing (letterpress) department and a separate lithographic (offset) de-
partment. While the two departments are located on the same floor,
they are grouped separately and are under separate supervision. In
the history of the plant there has been no interchange of employees
between the letterpress and lithographic department.
Since the installation of the lithographic department at the Em-
ployer's plant 14 years ago, the Intervenor has been the exclusive bar-
gaining agent, on an industrial basis, of all employees in the litho-
graphic process. For approximately 20 years the letterpressmen and
assistants in the letterpress department have been represented by the
Petitioners. The operations at the Employer's plant are substantially
the same as those generally prevailing over the country.
The Petitioners, as noted above, seek to sever the offset pressmen
from the remaining employees engaged in the lithographic process.
The Board has repeatedly held that, absent unusual circumstances,
all employees engaged in the lithographic process form an indivisible
entity for the purposes of collective bargaining.' Notwithstanding
Section 9 (b) (2) of the amended Act,2 we find no unusual circum-
stances in the instant case to warrant a severance of the offset press-
men from the remaining employees engaged in the lithographic
process.
Consequently, we find that the unit desired by the Petitioners is in-
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and we shall
dismiss the petition.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the peti-
tion herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
'See Matter of Court Square Press, 44 N . L. R. B. 702; Matter of Kistler Stationery
Co., 51 N L. R B. 978; Matter of Con P Curran Printing Co., 57 N. L. R. B. 185; Matter
of Midwest Printing Co., 58 N. L. R. B. 673; Matter of George Banta Publishing Co., 59
N. L. R. B. 669 ; Matter o f Foote it Davies, 66 N L R B 416 ; Matter of Roberts and Sons,
71 N L. If. B 294 ; Matter of Commercial Printing Co Inc., 73 N . L R B. 159 ; Matter of
Lord Baltimore Press, 73 N . L R. B. 811: Matter of Commercial Printers , 74 N. L. If. B
1135; Matter of Bond Crown it Cork , Subsidiary of Continental Can Company , Inc., 75
N. L. If. B . 1152 ; of Matter of Pacific Press, Inc. ;'66 N L R B 458
2 In Matter of National Tube Company, 76 N. L. If. B 1199 , the Board said: ( 1) the only
restriction imposed by Section 9 ( b) (2) is that a prior Board determination cannot be
the basis for denying separate representation to a craft group; ( 2) under the language of
the statute there is nothing to bar the Board from considering either a prior determination,
or the bargaining history of a particular employer as a factor even if not controlling, in
determining the appropriateness of a proposed craft unit ; ( 3) there is nothing in either
statute or legislative history to preclude the Board from considering or giving such weight
as it deems necessary to the factors of bargaining history in an industry , * * * the
integration of craft functions with the over -all production processes of the employer, and
many other circumstances upon which the Boaid has customarily based its determination
as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a proposed unit.