Robertson Sign Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1960

129 N.L.R.B. 207 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

ROBERTSON SIGN COMPANY 207
Robertson Sign Company and United Steelworkers of America'
and Amalgamated Lithographers of America Local No. 33,
Petitioners . Cases Nos. 9-RC-4038 and 9-RC-4055. September
30, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Mark M. Reynolds, 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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
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 involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units :
United Steelworkers of America petitions for a production and
maintenance unit at the Employer's two plants in Springfield, Ohio.
Amalgamated Lithographers of America Local 33 seeks a unit con-
sisting of the Employer's lithographic production department located
at one plant.
The Employer's lithographic department is an independent opera-
tion separate from all other departments and under separate super-
vision. There is only sporadic interchange of employees when lack
of work in the lithographic department would otherwise create lay-
offs. The record shows that the employees in this department are
trained for the more skilled processes and the employer will always
look to them first for any necessary replacement of skilled employees.
The Steelworkers does not contest the appropriateness of a litho-
graphic unit which includes such skills as platemaker-camera opera-
tor, offset machine pressman, and coating machine setup man. It
contends that the helpers in the lithographic department, i.e., feeders,
unrackers, and truckers, are not skilled and therefore should not be
included in the unit. The Board has consistently held that all em-
ployees engaged in the lithographich process form a cohesive unit
1 The motion of the Petitioner in Case No . 9-RC-4038 to intervene in Case No.
9-RC-4055 was granted by the hearing officer.
129 NLRB No. 27.
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes without regard to the
specific skills of the various employees engaged in the process .2
In view of the foregoing, we find that the lithographers may, if they
so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit. However, a unit of
production and maintenance employees including lithographic pro-
duction employees would also be appropriate. Accordingly, we shall
direct separate elections in the following voting groups of employees
at the Employer's Springfield, Ohio, plants.
Group 1: All lithographic production employees and their helpers,
excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, guards, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
Group 92 : All production and maintenance employees , excluding the
employees in voting group 1, office clerical employees , guards, profes-
sional employees , and supervisiors as defined by the Act 8
We shall place the names of the Lithographers and the Steelworkers
on the ballot in the election among the employees in voting group 1,
and the name of the Steelworkers only in group 2.
If the majority of employees voting in group 1 select the Lithogra-
phers, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elections
directed herein is hereby instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the Lithographers for such unit, which the Board, in
such circumstances, finds appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. However, if a majority of employees voting in group 1
do not vote for the Lithographers, those employees will appropriately
be included with the employees in voting group 2, and their votes will
be pooled with those in voting group 2 4 The aforesaid Regional Di-
.'Ea) I Litho Printing Co, Inc., 116 NLRB 1538 , 1539; Sutherland Paper Company,
122 NLRB 1284, 1286-1287.
8 Steelworkers would exclude , and the Employer include , the following employees. The
Lithographers took no position on any of them except the traffic manager , whom they
would exclude.
The traffic manager of the shipping and receiving department , Torrence (John)
Meyers, can effectively recommend hire and discharge and uses independent judgment
when directing work in his department . We find that he is a supervisor and exclude him
from the unit. Toolmaker Norman Hurst , shipping clerk John Ruscin , and electrician-
maintenance man Cyrus L Kelly, Jr., receive a higher wage due to greater knowledge,
experience , seniority , or responsibility. None of these employees has the authority to
hire, discharge , or to effectively recommend such action. They sometimes transmit work
orders and refer grievances to their supervisors but do not responsibly direct other
employees . We find that none of these employees is a supervisor . We therefore include
them in the unit
The record does not indicate that setup employees Robert Scherrman , Jr., Paul Williams,
Walter McDaniels , Thomas Cooper , Paul Evans , Phillip Goltzene, and, Simon Jenkins
have any supervisory authority . We therefore include them in the unit
4 If the votes are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes
for the labor organization seeking a separate unit in voting group 1 shall be counted as
valid votes , but neither for nor against the labor organization seeking to represent a
production and maintenance unit All other votes are to be accorded their face value,
whether for representation by the union seeking the more comprehensive group or for
no union.
CALIFORNIA GIRL, INC. 209
rector is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
labor organization selected by the majority of the employees in voting
group 2 or in the pooled group, as the case may be, which the Board,
in such circumstances, finds to be a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 5
6 The Employer contends that two firemen, who are not currently working, should be
eligible to vote The Steelworkers took no position . The record shows that the two men
are laid oft each spring and rehired each fall . The Employer's secretary -treasurer stated
at the hearing that they will be recalled this year . We find that the two firemen are
eligible to vote.
California Girl , Inc. and Local 84, International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union . Case No. 21-CA-3808. October 3, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 17, 1960, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Intermediate 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
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the General Counsel
and Respondent filed briefs. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings
made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prej-
udicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial
Examiner's fi.ndings,2 conclusions,3 and recommendations.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Members Rodgers , Jenkins, and Fanning].
2 The Trial Examiner drew a parallel between the conduct of the Respondent Employer's
negotiator in this case , and the similar conduct of the same negotiator in Duro Fittings
Company, 121 NLRB 377, a prior case involving a different employer . We do not rely on,
nor do we read the Trial Examiner 's references to the facts of the Duro case as an indica-
tion that he relied on, those facts as evidence of the instant Respondent 's refusal to bar-
gain in good faith. We adopt the Trial Examiner 's findings because they are adequately
supported by a preponderance of reliable evidence in the record in this case , and we rely
on the Duro case only as a legal precedent for our ultimate conclusion herein.
8 The Trial Examiner found that "on and after August 3, 1959 ," the Respondent vio-
lated the Act by refusing to bargain with its employees ' statutory bargaining representa-
tive in the appropriate unit. As the Respondent engaged in a course of conduct, the
totality of which failed to comply with the statutory requirement of good-faith bargaining,
we find that the violation of 'Section 8(a) (5) and ( 1) commenced on August 5, 1959, the
date on which the Respondent and Union met for their first bargaining session.
129 NLRB No. 21.
586439-61-vol . 129-15