McCleery-Cumming Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1575 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

McCLEERY-CUMMING COMPANY 1575
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with OIL WoBEEBS INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION , affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described
herein , with respect to grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment , and other conditions of employment , and, if an understand-
ing is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees in the Respondent's Elk
Basin , Wyoming , plant , including employees in the process , mechanical,
and maintenance classifications , but excluding professional and clerical
employees , guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the above -named union to
bargain collectively with us, or refuse to bargain with said union, as the
exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit set
forth above or engage in any like or related acts or conduct.
All our employees are free to become or remain or refrain from becoming
members of the above -named union , or any other labor organization , except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
STANOLIND OIL AND GAS COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated --------------------- By --------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
MCCLEERY-CUMMING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESS-
MEN & ASSISTANTS' UNION or NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 18RC 1703. December 30,1952
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 Erwin A. Peterson, 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 Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
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 organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
101 NLRB No. 230.
1576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all pressmen, pressmen
helpers, cutting-machine operators, linotype operators, ludlow oper-
ators, type-makeup men, and stock-counting employees in the press-
room and in the paper-cutting room, excluding office and clerical
employees, receiving and stock men, bindery and gathering employees,
salesmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act. The Employer contends that the unit sought is inappro-
priate because it seeks to combine in one unit several distinct craft
groups, and because the employees sought are located in different
areas of the plant and work under different supervision.' The
Employer makes and sells calendars. There is no history of collective
bargaining for the employees of the Employer.
The pressmen and their helpers work in the same room as the
linotype operators, ludlow operator, and type-makeup men, but in a
separate area. All are under the supervision of the pressroom fore-
man. The pressmen perform the usual duties of their craft; the
linotype operators and the ludlow operator set type, while the type-
makeup men space the type.
The stock-counting employees in the pressroom are not, in fact,
located in the pressroom but work in the basement. They count the
sheets to be used in the pressroom, and are alternately supervised by
the pressroom foreman and the plant superintendent.
The cutting-machine operators, who work in the paper-cutting room
adjacent to the pressroom, cut paper to fit in the presses, and do any
trimming necessary after the work has come off the presses; they are
under the supervision of the plant superintendent. The gathering
employees, whom the Petitioner would exclude, also work in the
paper-cutting room, but are under the supervision of the bindery
foreman.
The stock-counting employees in the paper-cutting room. This
classification appears to refer to employees in the bindery department
who are occasionally assigned to work in the paper-cutting room,
counting stock and wrapping the finished product after it has been
trimmed by the cutting-machine operators. These employees, whom
the Petitioner would include, are supervised by the bindery foreman.
The Petitioner would, however, exclude a number of other employees
who are also under the supervision of the bindery foreman.
The unit sought consists essentially of a mixture of skilled and
semiskilled or unskilled employees. In view of the diverse supervision
and the dispersal of these employees throughout the plant, such a unit
cannot be found to be appropriate on a departmental basis. Nor
would we, in any event, include in the same unit the different craft
3 The Employer contends further that pressmen and Linotype operators may not be repre-
sented by the same union . We find no merit in this contention.
KEARNEY & TRECKER CORPORATION 1577
groups involved.2 We find, however, in view of their craft skills,
that (1) the pressmen and their helpers, and (2) the linotype oper-
ators, ludlow operator, and type-makeup men, constitute separate
units appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Acts We shall, accordingly, direct
separate elections among the employees of the Employer in the follow-
ing units, excluding in each case, all other employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act :
(1) The pressmen and their helpers 4
(2) The linotype operators, ludlow operator, and type-makeup men.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
2 See Everlast Process Printing Co., 98 NLRB 1313, where the Board declined to combine
linotype operators and pressmen in a single unit.
The Employer indicates in its brief that it regards the cutting -machine operators as
craftsmen . There is no evidence in the record , however, that these employees exercise craft
skills.
Everlast Process Printing Co , supra.
4One of the cutting-machine operators spends about 6 weeks a year operating a press
in the pressroom . Although he is classified as a night shift supervisor while employed in
the pressroom , we find, upon the entire record, that he is not a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act. We will include him in the pressmen 's unit to the extent that he works as a
pressman . However , we find that he does not have sufficient interest in the conditions of
employment of the pressmen to entitle him to vote in the election.
KEARNEY & TRECKER CORPORATION and LOCAL 1083, INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 13-CA-971. December 31,
1952
Decision and Order
On May 8, 1952, Trial Examiner George Bokat issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also recom-
mended dismissal of the complaint insofar as it alleged that the
Respondent had violated Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. Thereafter
the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the E. I. U. filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, and the General Counsel and the Respond-
ent filed briefs in support of their exceptions. Local 1083 joined in
the exceptions of the General Counsel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
101 NLRB No. 237.