R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1944

59 N.L.R.B. 122 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN & ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
UNIT No. 1, A. F. OF L.
In the Matter of R. R . DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS LODGE No. 126, AFL.
In the Matter of R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY and CHICAGO
PHOTO ENGRAVERS UNION No. 5, INTERNATIONAL PHOTO ENGRAVERS
UNION- OF NORTH AMERICA, A . F. OF L.
In the Matter of R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY and CHICAGO
MAILERS UNION No. 2, INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, A. F. OF L.
In the Matter of R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY and AMALGAMATED
LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 4
Messrs. Robert R. Rissman and Benjamin B. Salvaty, for the Board.
Pope c6 Ballard, by Messrs. Ernest S. Ballard and Thomas C.
Strachan, Jr., of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. Joseph M. Jacobs, of Chicago, Ill., for the Pressmen.
Mr. P. L. Siemiller, of Chicago, Ill., 'for the Machinists.
Messrs. Leon M. Despres, Larry C. Grwber, William J. Schragle, and
Nicholas M. DiPietro, of Chicago, Ill., for the Photo Engravers.
Messrs. Leon M. Despres, Andrew Giacola, and Nicholas M. Di
Pietro, of Chicago, Ill., for the Mailers.
Mr. Benjamin M. Robinson, of New York City, for the Lithog-
raphers.
Mr. A. Summer Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
Cases Nos. 13-R-2649 to 13-R-J653 respectively.Decided November
7, 1944
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions duly filed by International Printing Pressmen &
Assistants Union of North America, Unit No. 1, A. F. of L., herein
59 N. L. R. B., No. 31.
122
R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY 123
called the Pressmen ; by International Association of Machinists
Lodge No. 126 , AFL, herein called the Machinists ; by Chicago Photo
Engravers Union No. 5, International Photo Engravers Union of
North America , A. F. of L., herein called the Photo Engravers; by
Chicago Mailers Union No. 2 , International Typographical Union of
North America , A. F. of L., herein called the Mailers ; and by the Amal-
gamated Lithographers of America , Local No. 4 , herein called the
Lithographers , alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of R. R . Donnelley & Sons
Company, Chicago, Illinois , herein called the Company , the National
Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate consolidated
hearing upon due notice before Earl S. Bellman, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held at various times between October 2 and 13,1944,
at Chicago , Illinois. The Company and all petitioning unions
appeared , participated , and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues . The Trial Examiner 's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All
parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company, an Illinois corporation, has its
offices and principal place of business at Chicago, Illinois, and is
engaged in the manufacture, processing, distribution, and sale of
printed matter. In addition to its Chicago plant, which alone is
involved in these proceedings, the Company operates branch plants
at Crawfordsville, Indiana, and Detroit, Michigan. During the calen-
dar year 1943, the Company purchased for use at its Chicago plant raw
materials valued in excess of $2,500,000, of which approximately 80
percent was obtained from points outside the State of Illinois. During
the same period, the Company's receipts from the sale of products
manufactured at its Chicago plant, were in excess of $10,000,000, of
which more than 75 percent represented products shipped to points
outside the State of Illinois.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North
America, Unit No. 1; International Association of Machinists Lodge
No. 126; Chicago Photo Engravers Union No. 5, International Photo
Engravers Union of North America; Chicago Mailers Union No. 2,
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Typographical Union of North America; and Amal-
-gamated Lithographers of America, Local No. 4, are labor organiza-
tions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
At the hearing, the Company stated that it declined to recognize
any of the labor organizations involved as the exclusive bargaining
representative for any of its employees in the claimed appropriate
units.
The Company contends that no question concerning representation
exists by reason of an alleged failure on the part of the petitioning
unions to demand, prior to the filing of the petitions herein, that the
Company bargain collectively or that it recognize such unions as ex-
clusive bargaining representatives of the Company's employees.
This contention has been previously presented to and rejected by the
Board on numerous occasions.,' We see no reason for departing from
this position. For a proceeding of this kind, it is sufficient that as of
the date of the hearing the status of a petitioning union as bargain-
ing agent is disputed and that recognition depends upon certification
by the Board.
Statements of a Field Examiner, introduced in evidence at the hear-
ing, indicate that the Pressmen, the Machinists, the Photo Engravers,
the Mailers, and the Lithographers, each represents a substantial
slumber of employees within the unit it claims to be appropriate 2
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The five petitioning unions seek separate units of employees within
the claimed jurisdiction of each of the several unions. The Machin-
1 See Matter ' of The Gilbert & Bennett Manufacturing Company, 45 N. L. R. B. 1223;
Matter of Columbus Iron Works Company, 47 N. L. R. B 430.
2 The Field Examiner reported that the Pressmen had submitted 866 authorization cards
dated between January 1943 and September 1944 , including 65 undated , from among a
total of 1,050 employees within the unit claimed appropriate by the Pressmen ; that the
Machinists had submitted 24 authorization cards dated in September 1944, from among
a total of 29 employees within the unit claimed appropriate by the Machinists; that the
Photo Engravers had submitted 41 authorization cards dated between January 1943 and
September 1944, including 23 dated prior to January 1943, from among a total of 42
employees within the unit claimed appropriate by the Photo Engravers ; that the Mailers
had submitted 134 authorization cards dated between January 1943 and September 1944,
including 50 dated prior to January 1943 and 6 undated, from among a total of 150 em-
ployees within the unit claimed appropriate by the Mailers ; and that the Lithographers
had submitted 19 authorization cards dated between January 1943 and September 1944,
including 6 undated , together with an affidavit certifying that 34 employees are members
of the Lithographers , from among a total of 74 employees within the unit claimed appro-
priate by the Lithographers.
I
R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY 125
fists, the Photo Engravers, and the Lithographers seek departmental
units as to which no serious controversy exists aside from the question
of certain exclusions urged by the Company with respect to the Ma-
chinists' and Lithographers' units, respectively. The principal issues
raised by the Company relate to the units proposed by the Pressmen
and the Mailers. Of these, the Pressmen seeks a unit comprising
both skilled and unskilled or semi-skilled pressmen employed in four
separate departments of the Company. The unit proposed by the
Mailers consists of employees engaged in mailing operations, which
operations are included in the bindery department. The Company
contends that the unit proposed by the Pressmen is inappropriate by
reason of an ,alleged inconsistency between the form of organization
employed and the practice of organizing press employees in the Chi-
cago area. With respect to the Mailers' unit, the Company urges that
the unit is lacking in homogeneity and identity by reason of the in-
clusion therein of certain bindery employees whose time is divided
between binding and mailing operations. The Company is in agree-
ment with the unit proposed by the Photo Engravers. The problems
with respect to the Pressmen's, the Mailers', the Machinists' and the
Lithographers' units will be considered in the order referred to above.
The unit proposed by the Pressmen
The Company's objections to the unit proposed by the Pressmen is
based upon the fact that, unlike the method adopted by the Pressmen
in organizing the Company's employees, it is the customary practice
of press unions in the Chicago area to organize in separate locals,
skilled pressmen, semi-skilled pressmen, and unskilled laborers en-
gaged in pressroom activities. By 'contrast therewith, the record
reveals that the Pressmen's local herein concerned was specifically
created as the result of an agreement reached at a conference of
various press locals for the purpose of organizing the Company's
major pressrooms upon a functional basis, including in one unit skilled,
semi-skilled, and unskilled pressworkers who under ordinary circum-
stances would have been organized in three separate locals. These
workers were brought together in one local by reason of the difficulty
of identifying among the Company's classifications the employees to
be segregated into separate units, and also in view of the fact that,
in the absence of organization among the Company's employees ex-
tending o :-er a long period of time, the Company had adopted cer-
tain practices disinguishing it from other printing concerns in the
Chicago area. In addition thereto, the evidence discloses that the
form of organization used by the Pressmen in the present instance has
been the basis of collective bargaining agreements between the Press-
men and printing concerns in other parts of the United States out-
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
side the Chicago area .3 While the employees 'herein claimed by the
Pressmen as an appropriate unit are not confined to a single depart-
ment, they do, nevertheless, constitute an identifiable homogeneous
group of employees performing interrelated functions within the gen-
eral jurisdiction of the Pressmen's international union. Under the
circumstances, including the fact that the pressroom employees have
been organized as a single group, we are of the opinion that the press-
room employees aforesaid may properly constitute a separate appro-
priate unit .4
The unit proposed by the Mailers
The contention of the Company that the unit proposed by the Mailers
is lacking-in homogeneity and identity by reason of the inclusion
therein of certain bindery employees, rests upon the fact that the unit
concerns bindery employees who perform part-time mailing operations
and whose identity as mailing employees presents certain difficulties
by reason of transfers between bindery and mailing duties. The bind-
ery employees in question consist of bindery girls employed as helpers
in mailing and wrapping operations and also in related activities in
the publication, tag, and stencil rooms, respectively. Among such,
those engaged in wrapping are girls who perform the functions of
single wrapping, an occupation found elsewhere throughout the bind-
ery in non-mailing operations. Despite such relationship between
single wrappers and the bindery employees generally, it appears that
the wrapping done by single wrappers in connection with mailing
work is performed in close proximity to the mailing employees and in
support of regular mailing operations which are largely concentrated
in an area apart from bindery operations generally. While single
wrappers under some circumstances have been found to be more prop-
erly a part of a unit of bindery as distinguished from mailing em-
ployees,' there is in the present instance no labor organization which
claims either a unit of bindery employees or representation among-
bindery employees as a group.° Under the circumstances, we are of
the opinion that the mailing employees, including such bindery girls
as regularly devote more than half of their time to mailing or related
duties,? may properly constitute a 'separate appropriate unit.
8 The Company contends that the contracts of the Pressmen in outside areas are not
relevant by reason of the fact that the employers therein concerned are magazine pub-
lishers rather than commercial printers like the Company. It is admitted, however, that
there is no substantial difference between the printing operations of commercial printers
and those of magazine publishers.
4 See Matter of A S. Abell Company, 27 N L R. B 776 at 781.
" See Matter of American Medical Association, 39 N L R B. 335
6 The record discloses that the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, while not
appearing or formally notified of the present proceedings, participated in the conference
of unions, hereinabove referred to, and apparently indicated that it had no interest in the
employees herein concerned.
T The identity of such employees may be ascertained by reference to work slips and other
means when not readily apparent from pay-roll classifications.
R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY 127
The unit proposed by the Machinists
The unit claimed by the-Machinists as appropriate consists of em-
ployees performing the duties of machinists or related work on the
pay roll of the machine shop, which is part of the Company's mainte-
nance department. The Company's. only objection to the unit of
machine shop employees concerns the classifications of knife grinder
and welder. The Company contends that both the knife grinder and
the welder are not trained machinists and perform duties for which
mechanical aptitude is not of necessity required. The Company fur-
ther points to the fact that the classifications of knife grinder and
welder are not specifically mentioned in the collective bargaining
agreements of the Machinists covering general machine shop em-
ployees. On the other hand, it appears that the work of both knife
grinder and welder is ordinarily performed by regular machinists
who are expressly covered by collective bargaining agreements. In
the case of the knife grinder and welder employed by the Company,
it appears that both are on the pay roll of the machine shop and re-
port to the machine shop foreman. The Machinists stated at the
hearing that if certified it was ready and willing to bargain for all
employees in the unit which it claims to be appropriate. Under the
circumstances, we shall include the knife grinder and the welder within
the unit of machine shop employees hereinafter found appropriate.
The unit proposed by the Lithographers
The Lithographers contends for a unit of lithographic production
employees all of whom are located within the Company's "Depart-
ment M." The Company's only objection to the proposed unit con-
cerns the classifications of inspectors, paper handlers, joggers, and
truckers, whom the Company contends should be excluded therefrom.
The Company urges as the ground for excluding such classifications,
the status of the Lithographers as a craft labor organization and the
jurisdiction of other unions, particularly the Paper Handlers, as ap-
plicable to the contested categories. While the evidence discloses that
aside from inspectors, the employees in the other -classifications are
relatively less skilled than journeymen lithographers, it appears that
similar employees have on occasion been included in units represented
by the Lithographers when organizing on the basis of the lithographic
process; such units also have been found by the Board to be appro-
priate for collective bargaining .8 Moreover, the record reveals that
no other labor organization is claiming the employees in question who
8 See Matter of Con P. Curran Printing Company, 57 N L. R B. 185 . In a Stipple-
mental Decision and Direction (58 N L R B. 175) the Board included among eligible
employees paper handlers engaged at work in connection with the lithographic process.
618683-45-vol 59-10
128 _ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
will otherwise be left without effective representation .9 Under the
circumstances we shall include the classifications of inspectors, paper
handlers, joggers, and truckers within the unit of lithographic em-
ployees hereinafter found appropriate.
Upon the basis of the entire record we find that the following units
are appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
(1) All employees employed in the pressrooms of the Company
designated as Departments "B", "C", and "D" and the Rotogravure
Press Room (known as D Roto), excluding (1) from Department
"B", the superintendent, stoneman, production man or clerk, mes-
senger, Bulletin Service Employees, timekeeper or clerk; (2) from
Department "C", the superintendent, production man or clerk, time
clerk, engraver, or plate repairman, line-up man and proofreader;
(3) from Department "D", the superintendent, production man or
clerk, time clerk, engraver, trainee engraver; and (4) from the Roto-
gravure Press Room, the superintendent only;
(2) All employees employed in machine and related classifications
in or on the pay roll of the Company's machine shop, including the
knife grinder and welder, but excluding the machine shop superin-
tendent, the production man and employees in the classifications of
plumber, plumber's helper, and mason;
(3) All employees employed in the rotogravure cylinder making
department of the Company, engaged in the actual production of
rotogravure cylinders and all parts of the process pertaining to the
production of rotogravure photo-engraving from the copy, original,
or subject up to the finished product, excluding the departmental
manager, production man, office and clerical employees, errand boys
and girls, such regular employees of other departments of the Com-
pany who are temporarily assigned to the rotogravure cylinder mak-
ing department and all other employees of the Company;
(4) All employees performing mailing machine operations in De-
partment "DE" of the Company other than catalog flyer work and
banding work with respect to machines Nos. 17 and 118, including
members of mailing crews and supervisors who pile mail at the bot-
tom of chutes located in Building B, 1st floor, and including bindery
girls who regularly spend more than half of their time on mailing
operations, single wrapping in connection with mailing work and re-
lated activities in the publication, tag, and stencil rooms, respectively,
excluding the department superintendent, general foreman, produc-
l ion men, time clerks, such employees who are transferred to the pub-
9 The absence of any jurisdictional claim on the part of the Paper Handlers is indicated
by the fact that Chicago Paper Handlers Union No. 2 authorized International Printing
Pressmen & Assistants ' Union to assume direction of the drive to organize the Company's
pressroom employees.
R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY 129
lication, stencil and tag rooms from other duties in Department "DE"
on an occasional basis to assist in handling rush orders, and all other
employees of the Company;
(5) All lithographers or offset production employees on the pay
roll of Department "M" of the Company, including inspectors, paper
handlers, joggers, truckers, and working foremen, but excluding the
department superintendent, the manager, non-working foremen, pro-
duction men, janitors, and clerical employees.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Company requests in opposition to the petitioning unions that
all employees classified as "temporary employees" be excluded from
the eligible employees in the several units. The evidence discloses that
the Company maintains four different classes of "temporary em-
ployees," comprising (1) seasonal employees, (2) employees having less
than 2 years continuous satisfactory service, (3) employees engaged
specifically to fill the places of regular employees in the armed forces,
and (4) girl apprentices whose contracts are for the duration of the
war. Of these employees, all but seasonal employees are of the types
frequently referred to as either probationary or war service employees,
both of whom have substantial interests in common with permanent
employees, including indefinite employment. Seasonal employees, on
the other hand, are hired for periods of not over 3 months each during
the winter and summer seasons of peak activity in the Company's oper-
ations. At the end of each season they are discharged without expecta-
tion of further employment by the Company, which, at the present
time, makes no attempt to recall them at the beginning of a new season
of peak operations. Seasonal employees when discharged by the Com-
pany frequently secure employment in war industry and generally do
not return for successive seasons to the Company's employ. Since it
appears that seasonal employees are not regularly employed from sea-
son to season by the Company, we shall not include them within the
category of eligible employees 10 However, in view of the substantial
interests of the other so-called "temporary employees" and their pros-
pect of continued employment by the Company, we shall include them
among the employees eligible to vote in the elections hereinafter
directed 11
The Company further contends that employees who are presently
serving in the armed forces of the United States should be permitted
10 See Matter of Chicaqo Roto Print Co , 45 N. L. It. B. 1263; Matter of W. F. Hall
Printing Company, 51 N. L. It. B. 640 , see also Matter of National Fruit Product Company,
57 N. L. R. B. 100.
11 See Matter of The Connecticut Power Company, 52 N. L. R. B. 1223.
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to vote by absentee ballot. In accordance with our established policy,-
we shall deny the Company's request and permit to vote only those
employees on military leave who present themselves in person at the
-polls.
The Photo Engravers requests that the date to -be adopted as the
pay-roll date for election purposes should be the pay-roll date im-
mediately preceding the filing of the petition by the Photo Engravers.
The reason alleged for such request is that any other date would afford
the Company an opportunity to influence the results of the election
by transferring into the department concerned, employees hostile to
the Photo Engravers. There is nothing in the record, however, to,
indicate that the Company contemplates interfering with the rights
of its employees in their selection of bargaining representatives. Ac-
cordingly, we find no reason for departing from our usual practice with
respect to the date of eligibility affecting employees readily-identifiable
as properly within the several units hereinabove referred to. How-
ever, in the case of employees whose identity in connection with mailing
work -may not be clearly apparent from pay-roll classifications, we
shall, in view of the records presently available for purposes of
identification, limit eligibility to such employees who were employed
by the Company during the month of September 1944.
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by elections- by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the aVpropriate units, who were employed during the pay-
roll period preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with R. R. Donnelley
& Sons Company, Chicago, Illinois, elections by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among those
employees of R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company who fall within the
" See Matter of Mine Safety Appliance Co of Gallery Plant , Gallery, Pa, 55 N I, R B.
1190 , Matter of Airpath Instrument Company , 56 N L R B 236 , Matter of Servel, Inc,
58 N. L R. B 5.
R. R. DQNNELLEY & SONS COMPANY 131
groups indicated below and whose names, other than those of bindery
girls engaged part time in mailing work '13 are listed on the Company's
pay roll for the period immediately preceding the date of this Direc-
tion of Elections, including learners, appretices, students, part-time
(short hour), and "temporary employees" other than seasonal em-
ployees, and any employees who did not work during said pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and
including employees in the armed forces of the United States who pre-
sent themselves in person at the polls, but excluding seasonal employees,
and any employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elections :
(1) All employees in the Pressmen's unit found appropriate in
Section IV, above, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union
of North America, Unit No. 1, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective
bargaining;
(2) All employees in the Machinists' unit found appropriate in
Section IV, above, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by International Association of Machinists Lodge No.
126, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining;
(3) All employees in the Photo Engravers' unit found appropriate
in Section IV, above, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by Chicago Photo Engravers Union No. 5, International
Photo Engravers Union of North America, A. F. of L., for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining;
(4) All employees in the Mailers' unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
Chicago Mailers Union No. 2, International Typographical Union of
North America, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining;
(5) All employees in the Lithographers' unit found appropriate
in Section IV, above, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local No. 4,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
'g Eligibility of such employees otherwise included within the Mailers' unit is limited,
as above indicated , to-those employees who were employed during the month of September
1944.