Print-O-Stat, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 272 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Print-O-Stat, Inc. and York Typographical Union,
No. 242, a/w International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 4-RC-13607
January 15, 1980
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On July 10, 1979, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 4 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found
appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit of all full-
and part-time printing production employees at the
Employer's York, Pennsylvania, facility. The Acting
Regional Director also found, in agreement with the
Petitioner, that individuals classified as gang leaders
were supervisors who should be excluded from the
unit found appropriate. Thereafter, in accordance with
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the
Employer filed a timely request for review of the
Acting Regional Director's decision on the grounds,
inter alia, that he clearly erred as to substantial factual
issues in finding the petitioned-for unit to be appropri-
ate and the gang leaders to be supervisors within the
meaning of the Act.
By telegraphic order dated July 31, 1979, the
request for review was granted. Pursuant to the
Board's procedures, the election was held on August
2, 1979, and the ballots were impounded pending the
Board's decision on review.
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 considered the entire record in this
proceeding, including the Employer's brief on review,
with respect to the issues under review, and makes the
following findings:
The Employer is engaged in the reproduction and
duplication of printed materials and in the retail
distribution of architectural engineering supplies and
office furniture. Its current operational facility at 1011
West Market Street, York, Pennsylvania, consists of a
building divided into separate main plant and ware-
house sections. Production facilities, sales, and busi-
ness offices are located in the main plant.
The Petitioner seeks to represent all full-and part-
time printing production employees in the main plant,
including employees in the art, line print, duplicating
and offset, and camera departments. As indicated, the
' The Acting Regional Director also found that the sole inventory control
clerk employed by the Employer was a dual function employee who should be
247 NLRB No. 47
Petitioner would exclude as supervisors from the unit
each of four individuals classified as gang leaders. The
Employer contends that the petitioned-for unit is
inappropriate in view of the York facility's integrated
operations and that an appropriate unit must also
include main plant employees in the purchasing and
estimating, repair, and customer services departments,
the inventory clerks, and the outside salesmen. Nei-
ther party seeks to include within the unit found
appropriate any of the Employer's employees who
work in the warehouse of the York facility.
It is undisputed that the approximately 33 employ-
ees in the petitioned-for unit are engaged in a highly
integrated printing and reproduction operation char-
acterized by considerable daily contact and inter-
change of duties. The Acting Regional Director found
that these employees did not have the same degree of
contact and interchange with other employees in the
main plant. He also found that the printing production
employees received separate immediate supervision
from the four gang leaders. On the basis of those
findings, the Acting Regional Director found that
employees in the petitioned-for unit possessed a
separate community of interest which warranted their
representation apart from other employees in the main
plant.' For reasons stated below, we disagree with the
Acting Regional Director and find in agreement with
the Employer that only an overall unit of main plant
production and maintenance employees at its York
facility is appropriate for collective bargaining.
Contrary to the Acting Regional Director's find-
ings, the record indicates that the Employer's produc-
tion operations at the York facility emphasize continu-
al employee contacts, job interchangeability, and a
high degree of functional integration throughout all
departments in the main plant. The two employees in
the repair department, for instance, maintain and
repair all equipment in the production area either in
situ or at a workbench adjacent to that area. They are
available for and have performed printing production
work in both the line print and the duplicating and
offset departments. The eight employees in the cus-
tomer services department have work stations in both
the business office and production areas. They appear
daily in the latter area while servicing customer
orders, but they have also done production work in
the bindery section of the duplicating and offset
department and in the camera department. The two
employees in the purchasing and estimating depart-
ment work in conjunction with and procure materials
for production personnel. In addition, one purchasing
and estimating employee spends approximately 30
percent of his time performing letter press operations
in the duplicating and offset department. Finally, the
included in the unit found appropriate. The inclusion of this employee in the
unit is no longer in dispute.
272
PRINT-O-STAT, INC.
Employer's four outside salesmen engage in customer
related sales work outside the production area, but
they also perform duties in both the duplicating and
offset and the camera departments. At the time of
hearing in this proceeding, one salesman had been
working for most of the preceding month as a stripper
in the camera department.
All employees in the main plant share a common
wage scale and a common schedule of benefits, with
the exception of additional commissions paid to
outside salesmen. All employees likewise enjoy the
same working conditions. Their work is subject to
overall common supervision from Palmer Ropp, the
Employer's president, and from Weldon Ropp, the
Employer's vice president and general manager of the
York facility. Both Palmer and Weldon Ropp are
admitted supervisors within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act. There is a dispute, however, about
whether gang leaders who work for the Employer in
the camera, duplicating and offset, and art depart-
ments, and in the bindery section of duplicating and
offset, are also supervisors. In agreement with the
Petitioner, the Acting Regional Director has found
that the gang leaders are supervisors because they
have the authority to grant time off, to assign
employees to work overtime, to make job assignments,
and to see that work in their departments is accom-
plished. Contrary to the Acting Regional Director, we
find no indication in the record that the performance
of duties pursuant to the aforementioned authority
requires the exercise of independent judgment charac-
teristic of statutory supervisory status. The gang
leaders function essentially as senior experienced lead
personnel in their respective departments and their
direction of other employees is dictated solely and
I We note that the Acting Regional Director failed to distinguish or to
explain adequately the disparity in results between his unit finding herein and
the dismissal of a 1968 petition for the same unit of the Employer's employees
in Case 4-RC-7832. Although the Regional Director's unpublished decision
in the earlier proceeding is not dispositive of the issues presented herein, it has
been made part of the record and is entitled to some evidentiary weight in the
absence of significant factual distinctions.
' As the unit found appropriate herein is larger than that requested, the
routinely by the specific demands of each production
job. We find that the gang leaders are not supervisors
within the meaning of the Act and consequently do
not comprise a separate level of supervision for
employees in the petitioned-for unit.
Based on the foregoing evidence of employee
interchange, functional integration, and common
wages, benefits, working conditions, and supervision,
and on the record as a whole,2 we find that the
petitioned-for unit is an inappropriate unit because the
employees therein do not have a sufficiently distinct
and separate community of interest apart from other
employees in the main plant of the Employer's York
facility. We further find that the following employees
of the Employer do constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time employees
employed in the main plant of the Employer's
facility at 1011 West Market Street, York, Penn-
sylvania, including employees in the art, line
print, duplicating and offset, camera, purchasing
and estimating, repair, and customer service
departments, the inventory control clerk, and the
outside salesmen; excluding office clericals,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Accordingly, we shall order that the election
conducted herein on August 2, 1979, be vacated and
shall direct an election in the unit heretofore found
appropriate, except that the payroll period for deter-
mining eligibility shall be that immediately preceding
the date of issuance of the Board's Order Amending
Decision on Review [issued January 25, 1980]. [Excel-
sior footnote omitted from publication.]
Petitioner is accorded a period of 10 days from the Board's Order Amending
Decision on Review [issued January 25. 19801 in which to submit the requisite
showing of interest to support an election herein. In the event the Petitioner
does not which to proceed with an election herein, it may withdraw its
petition without prejudice by notice to the Regional Director within 7 days
from the date of the Board's Order Amending Decision on Review [issued
January 25. 1980].
273