Richmond Press

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 8, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 10 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Envelope Company , Inc. d/b/a Richmond
Press ' and Graphic Arts International Union, Local
16-B, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 1-UC-172
January 8, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On August 19, 1975, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 1 issued a Decision and Clarification of Bar-
gaining Unit in the above-entitled proceeding which
is attached in pertinent part as an Appendix, wherein
he concluded that General Envelope Company, Inc.
(hereinafter called Envelope), and General Mail-
ways, Inc. (hereinafter called Mailways), are a single
employer for the purposes of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, and that the employment
interests of Mailways' employee William Pennell
were so closely aligned with those of the Envelope
employees in an existing unit covered by a collective-
bargaining agreement between Envelope and the Pe-
titioner that Pennell may, as Petitioner requests, be
added to the existing contract unit.2 Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National La-
bor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, Envelope filed a timely request for
review of the Regional Director's decision on the
ground that, in including Pennell in the existing unit,
the Regional Director departed from precedent and
made findings of fact that were clearly erroneous. By
telegram dated October 8, 1975, the request for re-
view was granted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case and makes the following findings:
In reaching his decision the Regional Director re-
lied on several findings of interrelated operations
that support conclusions. He found that both
Envelope's and Mailways' operations 3 are on the
same premises owned by Envelope, that a significant
i In the Regional Director 's Decision and Clarification of Bargaining
Unit, Employer's trade name was inadvertently referred to as "Richard"
Press
2 The contract unit covers all employees working in head shipper (receiv-
er), shipper, journeyman, and floor boy wage classifications, including all
bookbinders, apprentices, and floorworkers. All other Envelope employees
are covered under collective-bargaining agreements with two other labor
organizations -
Envelope began operations in 1930 and has had a contract with the
Union for many years Mailways was established in 1974.
ownership interest in both corporations is held by
one person-the president and treasurer of Envelope,
that Mailways purchases a significant part of its
product line from Envelope, that materials shipped
to either are received in the same shipping area, that
all shipping room equipment is owned by Envelope
and used interchangeably by the two corporations as
are the mailing and storage facilities, and that ship-
ping employees at both companies use the same tele-
phone and timeclock. The Regional Director also re-
lied on the fact that the companies are held out to the
public as affiliated, that the enterprises deal in relat-
ed products having to do with commercial printing 4
and that Mailways relies on Envelope for completing
certain shipping and administrative functions atten-
dant to its operations.
The Regional Director also made findings con-
cerning the integration of work forces and job func-
tions which, although supporting his conclusions, we
believe, deserve further development.
Mailways is staffed by Pennell, a part-time ship-
ping employee supervised by Austin, a dealership
manager for Mailways. Austin also works for Enve-
lope as a customer service representative reporting to
the president, and is physically located in the latter's
general office. In addition to Supervisor Austin and
-Shipper Pennell, Mailways may also have a clerical
employee. This small complement is generally sup-
plemented by the clerical and shipping employees of
General Envelope, reflecting both a substantial inte-
gration of the work forces and similarity in job func-
tions. Specifically, Envelope's office staff performs
clerical work for Mailways whenever the need arises
and its shipping employees receive Mailways' freight,
unload and store it, sign receiving slips or bills of
lading for the carrier, and may even make out the
detailed inventory receiving slips used by Mailways
to account for the freight.
Envelope's president testified that its employees
are expected to cooperate and help out handling
Mailways' shipping when the need arises. It appears
that this occurs when Pennell is not working or is off
the premises making deliveries or pickups, which as-
sumes importance because Pennell works only half
days during which he is expected to make deliveries
and pickups at customer premises and supply houses.
Equally indicative of significant employee integra-
tion is that Pennell has handled Envelope's freight,
that when he is working on Mailways' shipping he is
supervised by Austin who is paid by both corpora-
tions for a combination of supervisory and apparent
4 Mailways ' dealership agreements provide for the distribution and sale of
commercial printing such as business forms, envelopes, and letterheads, all
of which is punted by Envelope. In addition, Envelope prints, folds, and
cuts dealership agreements , brochures , and business forms used by Mail-
ways in its business
222 NLRB No. 8
RICHMOND PRESS 11
managerial work, and that Envelope employees were
apparently unaware until this dispute arose that there
was any meaningful distinction between either Mail-
ways or Envelope when they helped Pennell prepare
Mailways' outbound freight for mailing.
Envelope argues that this unit cannot be clarified
to include employees of a separate employing entity
such as Mailways, citing Woolwich, Inc., 185 NLRB
783 (1970). We, however, agree with the Regional
Director that Envelope and Mailways constitute a
single employer. Although Woolwich involved sepa-
rate companies having a family relationship between
the principal executive officer of each and close
proximity in location, the two companies were oper-
ated as separate entities with separate day-to-day
management and supervision, and with no inter-
change of employees between the two. There were
separate timeclocks and interchange of equipment
was "limited." In addition, at the time of hearing a
separate office was being constructed for Woolwich,
the warehouse operation. The Board there noted that
the union had never sought the Woolwich employees
as a separate unit, and found that no question con-
cerning representation existed to support the
employer's RM petition. As accretion was also urged
in that case by reason of an arbitration award, the
Board addressed itself to that problem and conclud-
ed that, absent employee consent,' accretion was not
appropriate on a record which showed separate own-
ership and essentially separate management. Here
there is one-third ownership of Mailways by
Envelope's president, Mailways holds itself out as an
affiliate of Envelope on dealership agreements and
brochures, operates on an interrelated basis on the
same premises, and by reason of Austin's dual capac-
ities there exists a degree of common management
significant in an employee complement of the size
here involved.
We view this evidence as showing that these com-
panies are so interrelated that a single employer find-
ing is warranted and that Envelope's assertion that
no common management or labor policy has been
shown is unpersuasive in light of this record.
Accordingly, we affirm the Regional Director's de-
termination that Pennell may appropriately be added
to the existing contract unit.
5 We note that Pennell earns a significantly lower rate of pay than provid-
ed under Petitioner's contract and that he has a demonstrated' community
of interest with Envelope's shipping and receiving employees
APPENDIX
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. General Envelope Company, Inc. d/b/a Rich-
ard Press (herein called Envelope)' is a Massachu-
setts corporation located at 144 Lundquist Drive,
Braintree, Massachusetts where it is engaged in the
commercial printing business and the wholesale sale
of envelopes. Envelope employs twelve (12) employ-
ees. Four of these employees are employed in its
bindery and shipping department and are covered by
a collective bargaining agreement with the Petitioner.
The remaining employees are represented by other
labor, organization in the printing trades and are not
involved herein.
General Mailways, Inc. (herein called Mailways) is
a Massachusetts corporation incorporated in 1974
and engaged in the sale and distribution of photoco-
py paper and photocopy machine supplies.
The Petitioner seeks to add to its contract unit one
individual, William Pennell, whom it claims is em-
ployed by the Employer. The Employer contends
that Pennell, is an employee of Mailways and thus is
in a separate and distinct unit having no community
of interest with the employees covered by the collec-
tive bargaining agreement between Envelope and the
Petitioner. Mailways is located on the same premises
as Envelope. It employs only two (2) individuals,
Pennell, who is employed part-time as a shipper, and
Ralph Austin, employed as a dealership manager
and also as Pennell's supervisor. Mailways operates
its business through franchised dealers. Austin is also
employed by Envelope as its customer service repre-
sentative. He is physically located in Envelope's gen-
eral office where Mailways' clerical work is prq-
cessed by Envelope clerical staff. Mailways in its
dealership arrangements represents itself as an affili-
ate with Envelope. It indicates therein that its prod-
ucts, beside photocopy paper and supplies, includes
customer commercial printing and business form en-
velopes, letterhead and other imprinted specialty
products. Envelope does the printing, folding and
cutting for Mailways. All materials received by both
Envelope and Mailways are received in the same
shipping area and such materials are handled by En-
velope employees as well as Pennell. Envelope owns
all of the shipping department equipment. Pennell
uses this equipment with the exception of a forklift
which is operated solely by an Envelope employee.
There is only one telephone in the shipping depart-
ment area and it is interchangeably used by Enve-
lope and Mailways employees as are the mailing and
storage facilities.
Pennell clocks in on the same timeclock used by
Envelope employees, but in view of the fact that he
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the i The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
makes deliveries, he is clocked out by Austin. Pennell
is paid less than Envelope shipping employees and
receives none of their fringe benefits.
Envelope's President, who is also its Treasurer,
owns approximately 98 percent of Envelope's stock
and has a one-third interest in Mailways, but is not
an officer of Mailways.
Based upon the above, it is found that Envelope
and Mailways are represented to the public as affili-
ates, are integrated, in that they use common loca-
tion, office and shipping facilities. Moreover, there is
an interrelationship of ownership and Austin, who is
Pennell's supervisor, reports to the President of En-
velope.
Accordingly, it is concluded that Envelope and
Mailways constitute a single Employer, and that
Pennell's employment interest is closely allied to the
employees unit covered by the collective bargaining
agreement between the Petitioner and Envelope and
he may thus appropriately be added to such a unit?
See Hemisphere Progressive Corp., Hemisphere Press,
Inc., 154 NLRB 711, 721; Local No. 235, Lithogra-
phers and Photoengravers International Union, 187
NLRB 490, 491.
2 Under the provisions of Sec . 102 67 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions , a request for review of this decision may be filed with the Board in
Washington , D.C. This request must be received by the Board in Washing-
ton by September 2, 1975.