Packaging Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1620 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

`1620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Packaging Corporation of America 1 and Amalgamated Lithog-
raphers of America , Independent , Local 46, Petitioner. Case
No. 7-1C-5917. May 14, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officers Aubrey V.
McCutcheon and Milton Fischer. The Hearing Officers' rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 2 involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following
reasons:3
The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of lithographic production
employees from an overall unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant, which
has been represented by the Intervenor since 1952. The Employer and
Intervenor maintain that the requested unit is inappropriate for sever-
ance basically on the ground that the employees sought are not true
lithographic employees.
The Employer, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the produc-
tion of folding box cartons. Its production activity is carried on in
a one-story building, and consists of three basic operations, namely,
,printing, cutting and creasing, and finishing. There are approxi-
mately 250 employees engaged in these processes. The Employer's
printing department has eight letterpresses of standard manufac-
ture,4 and three offset presses, namely, a Harris four-color press, a
Harris two-color press, and a "41" Miehle press. The letterpresses are
" The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Grand Rapids Printing Specialties and Paper Products Union No . 555, an affiliated
union . of International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, AFL-
.CIO, was permitted to Intervene at the hearing on the basis of its contractual Interest in
the employees herein.
3In view of our dismissal of the petition on the ground that the requested unit Is in-
appropriate for severance , we deem it unnecessary to rule on the contract -bar contention
of the Employer and the Intervenor.
4 The Employer recently installed in its plant a Heidelberg two-color rotary letterpress
which will use curved plates, .both rigid and flexible, similar to the letterset - plates used
on the offset presses, discussed below. As of the time of the hearing, this press was not
yet in operation . While this press will be operated by letterpress employees , it is contem-
plated that the work on these plates will be done by the employees in the offset plateroom.
146 NLRB No. 185.
PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1621
separated from the offset presses by a permanent brick firewa11.5 The
letterpresses are used exclusively for letterpress printing, and, as de-
scribed more fully below, the lithographic presses are utilized for off-
•set,.letterset, 'and direct contact processes of imprinting. Except as
'heieinafter noted, the Employer's letterpress and lithographic em-
ployees perform the normal work of such categories of employees.
Whether the Employer will print a particular order on the letter-
presses or on the offset presses is determined by various factors, includ-
ing the availability of equipment, the number of colors to be printed,
and certain technical considerations relating to the compatibility of
the different imprinting processes with the desired product. The
record discloses that during the past year approximately 50 percent
of the Employer's dollar volume was produced on the letterpresses
and 50 percent on the offset presses. .
In addition to employing normal letterpress and lithographic proc-
esses, the Employer utilizes letterset and direct contact processes of
imprinting.. These processes, which were instituted about 2 years ago,
involve the use, on a standard lithographic press, of inetal, plastic
(Dycril), or rubber plates which contain a raised surface for that por-
tion which is to be imprinted. In the letterset process, ink is applied
to the raised portion of the plate, and from there is transferred to the
intermediate rubber blanket which, in turn, "offsets'' it onto the paper.
In the direct contact process, the image is transferred directly from
the raised surface plate to the material being printed. Thus, it ap-
pears that the letterset and direct contact processes, while performed
on lithographic presses, are similar to the letterpress technique in that
'a'll• three processes involve printing from plates containing a raised
surface for that portion to be printed.' On the other hand, unlike
letterpress where the impression is made by the raised surface directly
on the material to be printed, in letterset the ink is transferred to
the rubber blanket, as is the case in offset printing.
The unit sought by the Petitioner is composed of about 27 em-
ployees engaged in the lithographic process, including 2 offset plate-
makers and 4 utility men engaged in offset work. The initial classi-
fication in the offset sequence is "helper." These employees then
progress to apprentice, pressman "C," pressman "B," and finally, the
c This firewall between the offset presses and letterpresses is purely structural and pre-
dates the use of offset presses.
E In Pacific Press, Inc.; 66 NLRB 458, .461 , footnote 8, 'the Board stated the difference
between letterpress and lithographic printing as follows: "Letterpress printing is a me-
chanical process of reproduction from a raised surface, that is from type or engraving.
The reproduction results from, pressing the type' or raised surface , which has been inked,
against the paper . In this process the printing plate or type is brought In-direct -contact
with . the paper-the pressure going direct from plate or type to paper . Lithography
.is, a chemical . reproduction process in which . the image to be reproduced is transferred
from a flat surface metal plate to an intermediate rubber blanket . The rubber blanket,
after picking up the impression , 'offsets' it on the paper."
1622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
journeyman classification, pressman ."A." Although the Employer
does not have a formal apprenticeship program, the lithographic
employees are given considerable on-the-job training which qualifies
them for the job of offset pressman "A" in about 4 years. All of the
current "A" and "B" pressmen assigned to the Employer's lithographic
presses have been promoted from the lower lithographic positions.
Printing department employees work under .the supervision of a
general foreman and five shift foremen. The first and second shifts
have one shift foreman for letterpress work and one for offset work.
The third shift has a single foreman who is in charge of both letter-
press and offset work.
The Employer's practice has been to assign a basic crew to do litho-
graphic work and another to do letterpress work, although it appears
that some of the lithographic employees (exclusive of the press opera-
tors) have been detailed to other areas of the plant. Practically all of
the employees engaged in lithographic work were initially. employed in
some other area of the plant, but these employees have retained their
seniority in the sequential progression of the other areas. Whenever
a vacancy occurs in any part of the plant, the job opening is posted,
and any employee in the plant, irrespective of the work he is currently
performing, may make application for the position. Fringe benefits,
as noted below, are identical for all employees in the plant, regardless
of the area in which they work.
In Allen, Lane ct Scott, et al.,' the Board recognized that it has
traditionally granted severance to units of lithographic employees,8
but added that, in view of certain technical innovations resulting in
the "blending of printing techniques," such as the use of the Dycril
plate and Heidelberg press, the character of the printing industry may
be altered to the point where the severance of lithographic employees
from a production and maintenance unit will no longer be appropriate.
The Board, although granting severance in Allen, Lane & Scott, et al.,
indicated that it would scrutinize very closely the future course of
this industry and reevaluate its unit policies upon a proper showing
that technological advances and the needs of the industry require it.
In accord with the decision in Allen, Lane d^ Scott , et al ., the Board,
in Weyerhaeuser,9 refused, to grant severance to a unit of lithographic
employees. The record there disclosed that it was possible, through the
use of a new printing technique, to have a single carton printed by
being run through both offset and letterpresses ; that the employer
had recently introduced the letterset innovation, which, as noted, em-
ploys the letterpress technique on pan offset press; and that there was
137 NLRB 223.
8 See Miller A Miller, Inc., 132 NLRB 1530, and cases cited therein ; Burroughs Corpora-
tion, The Todd Company Division, 139 NLRB 347.
e Weyerhaeuser Company , 142 NLRB 1169.
PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1623
substantial interchange between employees primarily engaged in either
of the two printing functions and a single promotional sequence for
both groups. The Board concluded that the employer had instituted
susbtantial changes "which resulted in the merger of its letterpress
and offset operations into a single printing department" and, accord-
ingly,, that the separate lithographic unit was inappropriate.
On the basis of the foregoing facts, we believe that the technical
innovations which have been instituted at the Employer's plant are
of such a nature that these lithographic employees no longer constitute
a cohesive group which may appropriately be severed from the pro-
duction and maintenance unit. Thus, here, as in Weyerhaeuser, the
same carton order is often printed first on an offset press and then on
a letterpress, or vice versa, and the Employer also uses the letterset
technique which employs the letterpress printing technique on the
offset press. As a result of the Employer's utilization of letterset and
direct contact printing on the offset presses, its lithographic employees
are performing an increasing amount of nonlithographic work. Thus,
in the January-June 1963 period, nearly 60 percent of the sheets com-
ing off the offset presses were printed by the letterset or letterset-
lithographic processes, while only 43 percent were printed solely by
the pure lithographic process. In the same period in 1962, 69 percent
of the offset sheets were printed solely by the lithographic processes
and 30 percent by letterset or letterset-lithographic processes.1° In-
deed, these statistics establish that, as of the time of the hearing, less
than 50 percent of the time of lithographic employees is devoted to
pure offset work. The blurring of the distinction between letterpress
and lithographic employees will be further accelerated in the near
future by changes now in the making. On plans approved before
the filing of the present petition, the Employer purchased a Heidel-
berg two-color rotary letterpress and approved the purchase of an
additional six-color offset press. These acquisitions will result in cer-
tain production changes. The Miehle offset press will be transferred
to another plant, and the Heidelberg letterpress and the new six-color
offset press will be placed directly in the line of letterpresses, in the
area presently occupied by two letterpresses which have been or will be
moved or taken out of production. The Heidelberg letterpress will
use curved plates, both rigid and flexible, similar to the letterset plates
30 An analysis of the Employer 's offset business reflects that during January to June
1962, 69 . 95 percent of operating time of the Employer ' s lithographic presses was devoted
to pure lithography , 17.99 percent to combined letterset - lithographic processes , and 12.06
percent to pure letterset ; that during July to December 1962, 63.11 percent of operating
time was devoted to pure lithography , 20.51 percent to combined letterset - lithographie
processes , and 16.38 percent to pure . letterset ; and that during January to June'1963,
43.10 percent of operating time was devoted to pure lithography, 52.08 ' peicent to comb
biped letterset-lithographic processes , and 4 . 82 percent to pure letterset .. While the record
Is not entirely clear on.the point , It appears. that the figures relating to letterset work
include also direct contact printing. The record contains no breakdown on the combined
letterset -lithographic processes.
1624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
now used in the plant. , These plates will be made by etnployees'work-
ing in the offset plate room . As a result the amount of nonlitho-
graphic plate work clone by these employees will be increased . In this
connection , we consider significant the fact that in Allen, Lane &
Scott, et al., the Board expressly alluded to the Heidelberg press and
to the Dycril plates ( which are currently being used on the Employer's
offset presses ) as the type of technical innovations which may make
separate lithographic units inappropriate.
In addition to the foregoing , we note a number of additional factors
which militate against the severance of a unit of lithographic em-
ployees in this case . Several classifications of lithographic employees
are subject to assignment to work in other areas in the plant, and
practically all of the employees presently working on the offset presses
have at one time worked in other plant areas . When an employee is
transferred from the offset press to another plant area, or vice versa.;
he retains his seniority status in the other plant area. Further, there
is a system of plantwide bidding for all job vacancies in the plant,
that is, when a vacancy occurs in any part of the plant , the job open-
ing is posted , and any employee is free to make application for the
position . Finally, the offset employees use the same parking lot, time-
clocks, and canteen areas as the other printing department employees,
and enjoy substantially similar fringe benefits in such areas as insur-
ance, vacations , and holiday pay.
In view of the foregoing circumstances , which establish , in our view,
a "blending of printing techniques" in the Employer 's plant, we con-
clude that a unit of lithographic employees cannot appropriately be
severed from the production and maintenance unit at the Employer's
Grand Rapids , Michigan , plant." Accordingly , as the unit requested
is inappropriate for severance on a craft or any other basis , we shall
dismiss the petition."
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS LEEDOM and FANNING, dissenting :
Unlike the majority, we would direct an election among the Em-
ployer's lithographic production employees.
. The Employer is engaged in the production of folding box cartons.
Approximately half of its printing work is done on standard offset
presses. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the production and
maintenance employees a unit of approximately 27 lithographic em-
pployees.. In holding that severance should be denied to these em-
n Our decision herein is predicated on the facts in this particular case , and should not
be construed as a reevaluation of any of our long-standing rules governing the appropriate-
ness of units in the commercial printing industry. .
See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 F. 2d 19 (C.A. 7) (1962)
PACKAGING. CORPORATION OF. AMERICA. .1625
ployees, our colleagues are today overruling established Board prece-
dent." Thus, they apparently reject as unpersuasive such heretofore
controlling factors as the full gamut of skills possessed by the-lithog-
raphers , their performance of predominantly lithographic work,
their separate location, their separate supervision, their system of pro-
motion from within the lithographic groups in accordance with a 4-
year, on-the-job training program, and their almost total lack of inter-
change with .others outside the department. In their view,, all .these
factors of separate identity, homogeneity, and cohesiveness have ceased
.to be meaningful because the Employer has introduced some technical
innovations, which, they find, indicate a trend toward the "blending of
printing techniques" and have already resulted in the lessening of
lithographic work. Yet, the fact is that the trend, if any, is far from
significant here, and there has been little, if any, reduction in litho-
graphic work. The net result is, therefore, that a trend, which is, at
best, only in the making, becomes the ground of decision of this case.
The majority has found that during the first 6 months of 1963, over
43 percent of the total lithographic press time was devoted to pure
lithography, slightly in excess of 52 percent of the time was devoted
to the combined letterset-lithographic process, and slightly under 5
percent of the time was devoted to pure letterset printing. We do not
believe that these figures show that lithographic employees are now
spending a majority or even a substantial amount of their time in
nonlithographic work. Thus, the fact that in these combined letterset-
lithographic jobs both offset and letterpress plates are used simultane-
ously on the same job demonstrates clearly that these combined jobs
are at least in part lithographic in nature and that employees engaged
in presswork on such jobs must possess lithographic skills. Moreover,
as noted by the majority, letterset work itself is like offset work in that
it involves printing through a rubber blanket. Indeed, the only type
of work done by lithographic, employees which does not require litho-
graphic skills is an unspecified amount of direct contact printing.
Since this represents but a small amount of nonlithographic work,14
it cannot, standing alone, have any overriding significance .15 Nor can
18 See, for example , W. H. Kistler Stationery Co., 51 NLRB 978; Con P. Curran Print-
ing Company, 57 NLRB 185; Midwest Printing Co., 58 NLRB 673; hfasontrare Company,
130 NLRB 231 ; Printing Industry of Delaware , 131 NLRB 1100.
14 As noted by the majority , the figures relating to letterset work include also direct
contact printing . Since during the first 6 months of 1963 lithographic employees spent
only 5 percent of their time on pure letterset work, they obviously must have spent less
than 5 percent of their time on direct contact printing.
is In The Lord Baltimore Press , Inc., 144 NLRB . 1376, the Board explicitly held that the
fact that lithographic employees on occasion are engaged in letterpress work is insufficient
reason to deny them the separate representation to which they would otherwise be en-
titled . And, in Giordano Lumber Co., Inc., 133 NLRB 205, the Board held that-truck-
drivers may constitute a functionally distinct 'group and as such may be entitled to sepa-
rate representation , so long as they spend less than amajority of their time in the : pursuit
of other tasks. .
1626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we attach any significance to the fact that a Heidelberg press has
been installed in the Employer's plant, for this press is not yet in
operation and neither its immediate nor long-range effect on the -Em-
ployer's operations has been shown. That letterpress employees at
some time in the future may do an unspecified amount of letterset
work similar to that being done by lithographic employees is mere
speculation not entitled to any weight in our unit determination. 16
Nor do we agree with the majority that lithographic employees
are doing an increasing amount of nonlithographic work. As we have
shown, the only true nonlithographic work being done by lithographic
employees is direct contact printing, and the record contains no
evidence indicating that lithographic employees are performing any
more direct contact printing work than they did previously. There is,
thus, contrary to our colleagues, no work "trend" away from the use
of lithographic skills. Moreover, even assuming such a trend it is
abundantly clear from the record that the trend has not reached
significant proportions, since lithographic employees still spend an
overwhelming majority of their time in work requiring lithographic
skills. In this connection, the decision in Allen, Lane d Scott, et al.,
is relevant, since there the Board, although recognizing a trend toward
the "blending of printing techniques" at the employer's plant, none-
theless found that the trend had not reached the stage where the sever-
ance of a lithographic unit was no longer appropriate.
The Weyerhaeuser case relied on by the majority is distinguishable
from the instant case. There, the Board, in refusing to grant a sep-
arate lithographic unit, relied on the facts that there was a "merger"
of the employer's letterpress and offset operations into a single print-
ing department, with common immediate supervision, and that there
was substantial interchange between employees primarily engaged in
either of the two printing functions.. We are unable to reach the same
conclusion here, as there has been no "merger" of the Employer's off-
set and letterpress operations nor has there been any significant trend
in that direction. In addition, as already indicated, the offset em-
ployees and letterpress employees are under separate immediate super-
vision except on the lightly manned third shift; lithographic em=
ployees perform only an insubstantial amount of nonlithographic
work; and there is only sporadic interchange between lithographic
and other employees. In our view, we find more in point in The Lord
Baltimore Press, Inc., supra, in which the Board found that a separate
lithographic unit was appropriate. For there, as in the case under
consideration, the employer's lithographic employees were under
1e Nor do we attach any weight to the other factors relied on by the majority, such as
the plantwide system of bidding for job openings and the retention of seniority in the
sequential progression of the other plant areas by transferred employees, since the record
shows that only rarely are lithographic positions taken over by nonlithographic personnel.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC., LOCAL 38 1627
supervision separate from the other employees in the plant; they per-
formed only a minimal amount of nonlithographic work; and there was
only sporadic interchange between lithographic and other employees.
In view of the foregoing, particularly the facts that lithographic
employees possess lithographic skills, are engaged predominantly in
work requiring such skills, are separately supervised and work in a
separate location, and that there is virtually no interchange between
lithographic and other employees, we would direct a severance election
among the lithographic employees.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 38 and Elmer
Davidson, its Business Agent [Al Johnson Construction Co.]
and Harold L. Wilkins . Case No. 19-CB-922. May 15, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 23, 1963, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. There-
after, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Decision and a support-
ing brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Decision, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders
that Respondent, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
1 we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent Davidson denied Wilkins' referral
to the Johnson and Dagerstrom jobs because he considered Wilkins' opposition to him and
to Donovan in the union election as an affront to their positions and prestige . See Local
Union No. 18 , International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, etc. ( Earl D.
Creager, Inc .), 141 NLRB 512 . We believe that the violations of Section 8(b) (1) (A)
and (2 ) which were thereby committed can be fully remedied as proposed by the Trial
Examiner without adopting his additional recommendation that the Respondents modify
their hiring dull procedures so as to conform exactly with the provisions of the Union _AUC
contract. The Respondents may not refuse to refer applicants for employment for reasons
related to their union or concerted activities , but they may continue to use nondiscrimina-
tory criteria for referral in addition to date of registration.
146 NLRB No. 189.