Royal McBee Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 741 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

ROYAL MCBEE CORPORATION 741
11, 1956.21 But the fact that it was written at all was a tacid acknowledgment that
Grant realized that he could not expect the Union to dispatch him until he made
himself available for dispatch, and asked for dispatch.
In 1955 the Union, faced with a back-pay claim for the entire season of 1954,
requested Grant to make himself available, and instructed its steward to diligently
seek out Grant, and dispatch him to the first available job. That conduct of the
Union was clearly not required by the court's decree, and contrasts sharply with
'Grant's inactivity in 1954.
I find that Grant did not make a diligent search for employment in 1954, because
he did not seek employment either through the Union or at the Pomeroy project.
From this record, which shows that the Respondents at all times were acting in good
faith, no inference can be drawn that Grant's application to either Respondent would
have been futile. On the contrary, the correspondence between the parties exhibits a
desire on the part of counsel for the Respondents, and the Respondents themselves,
to abide by their stipulation and obey the order of the Board and the decree of
the court. Furthermore, it appears to me that if the General Counsel had informed
the Respondents at the beginning of the 1954 season that, in his opinion, the decree
required the Union to diligently seek out Grant and dispatch him to a job, and
required Pomeroy to hire Grant for the 1954 season, the Respondents at that time
would have complied with that requirement, just as they did a year later. But the
General Counsel did not advise the Respondents of his interpretation of the decree
until October 1954, a time near the end of the construction season. I think it would
be inequitable and unjust to impose back pay of $7,115.61 against these Respondents
under those circumstances.
I find that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that either of the Respondents owes Grant any back pay for the year 1954.
Since the back pay for 1953 has been computed correctly, agreed upon by the
parties, and tendered by the Respondents, I hereby dismiss this proceeding, for all of
the reasons stated above.
as Union's Exhibit No. 10
Royal McBee Corporation and Athens Bindery Workers Union,
Local No. 181, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-291.. March 22,1957
'SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
On December 20, 1956, the Board issued its Decision and Order
herein? The Board found, among other things , that the contract be-
tween the Employer and Athens Printing Pressmen & Assistants'
Union No. 269 , International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, the Intervenor, was effective from
November 1, 1954, to October 31 , 1956, and thereafter from year to
year in the absence of a 60-day notice; that apparently no such notice
was given and that the contract was thus automatically renewed in
accordance with its terms ; and that the petition herein was filed on
September 25,1956. The Board also found, substantially in accordance
with the Intervenor's contention at the hearing, that the contract cov-
ered the categories sought herein by the Petitioner-the papercutters,
both journeymen and apprentices , employed by the Employer at its
Z Not reported in printed, volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
117 NLRB No. 111.
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
printing plant at Athens, Ohio. The Board therefore concluded that
the contract was a bar to this proceeding and dismissed the petition.
Thereafter, by letter dated January 2, 1957, the Petitioner requested
the Board to reconsider its Decision and Order on the ground that the
Intervenor gave the Employer a 60-day notice to reopen their contract.
On January 23, 1957, the Board issued its Order herein, reopening the
record of this proceeding and remanding it to the Regional Director
for further hearing as to whether a notice to reopen the contract was
given by the Intervenor.
Thereafter, about February 13,1957, the parties filed with the Board
a stipulation, in which, among other things, they expressly agreed that
the Intervenor gave notice of reopening in accordance with provisions
of the contract, and that the contract is not a bar to this proceeding.
In their stipulation, the parties also waived the holding of any further
hearing and requested the Board to render another decision on the
stipulation, the exhibits attached thereto, and the present record in the
case. We accept the stipulation of the panties and the exhibits, and
they are hereby made a part of the record in this proceeding. In these
circumstances, we shall set aside our Decision and Order herein and
shall again consider the case on its merits.
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joe F. Odle, Jr., hearing of-
ficer. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Murdock and Rodgers].
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. We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties noted
above, that the contract between the Employer and the Intervenor is
not a bar to this proceeding. We therefore find that a question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. As noted, the Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of papercutters,
both journeymen and apprentices, at the Employer's printing. plant
at Athens, Ohio. The Intervenor, alleging that its contracts with the
Employer have covered both the papercutters sought herein by the
Petitioner and also other employees, contends in substance that paper-
cutters may not constitute a separate appropriate unit at this time.
ROYAL McBEE CORPORATION 743
The Employer submits the unit question to the Board for its
determination.
The Employer is engaged at four places in the United States in the
manufacture of accounting forms and equipment. Only its Athens,
Ohio, plant, which consists of its so-called Plants 1 and 2, is involved
in this proceeding. The Employer divides its Athens operations into
several departments or sections, including, in Plant 1, an office, a
machine shop, and the press, finishing, stock, shipping and receiving,
and guide and index departments; and, in Plant 2, a pressroom,
another finishing department, and the shipping, copy preparation,
plate, and plate file departments. The papercutters sought by the
Petitioner work in the finishing and stock departments 2 in Plant 1
and in the finishing department in Plant 2.
For some time, the Employer has had contracts with several labor
organizations, including the Petitioner and the Intervenor, covering
employees at its Athens plant. It has had contracts with the Inter-
venor since about 1938. The latest contract between the Employer
and the Intervenor,3 after providing for the coverage of pressroom
employees, further provides as follows :
It is also understood that this contract applies to the Union
Camera and Platemaking Department, Etching Department,
Copy Preparation, Art Departments and Paper Cutters Depart-
ments in which the Union has been formally recognized by the
Employer as the exclusive collective bargaining representative.
This contract also sets forth pay rates for "cutters" and provides
both for transfers of apprentice cutters between punch presses and
cutting machines, and for the periods of time that such apprentices
must spend on cutting machines 4 In all these circumstances, we
find that the Intervenor's contracts covered the categories sought '
herein by the Petitioner.
The work performed by the Employer's journeymen and apprentice
papercutters is of the type normally performed by such employees in
the printing industry.' The Board has found that papercutters, such
as those involved herein, are a highly skilled craft group, who may
constitute a separate bargaining unit.' We therefore find that the
2The papercutteis who work in the latter department are nevertheless assigned to
the former department
s This is the contract which , as noted above , was previously tound to be a bar.
4 The contract reads : "Cutte, s: . .. Apprentices when taken from punch presses shall
serve 4 year apprenticeship . Apprentices when not taken from punch presses shall serve
5 year apprenticeship on cutting machines . Apprentices with experience on punch presses
shall start on second year scale for apprentices . . .
At the hearing , the Employer 's assistant director of personnel , relying on some of the
provisions of the contract noted herein , stated in substance that it covered journeymen
and apprentice papercutters
i The Employer 's assistant vice president testified , in effect, that the work done by the
Employer 's papercutters is a little more exact than that usually done by such employees.
0 The Rainbow Lithographing Company, 69 NLRB 1383.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
papercutters, both journeymen and apprentices, employed by the
Employer at its Athens plant may constitute a separate appropriate
unit and may, if they so desire, be represented in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining by the Petitioner, a labor organiza-
tion whose international union traditionally represents such em-
ployees. However, we also find, on the basis of the bargaining history,
that the papercutters may remain a part of the larger unit set forth
in the Intervenor's contract. We shall, therefore, make no final unit
determination at this time, but shall direct that the question con-
cerning representation be resolved by a secret election among the
employees in a voting group consisting of the papercutters, both
journeymen and apprentices, at the Employer's Athens, Ohio, plant,
-excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the
Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con-
stitute a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director con-
ducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification
,of representatives to the Petitioner for this unit, which the Board,
under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining. In the event a majority do not vote for the
Petitioner, these employees shall remain a part of the larger unit and
the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election
to such effect.
[The Board revoked and set aside the Decision and Order issued
-herein on December 20,1956.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. and International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 6-RC-1843.
March 22, 1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election exe-
cuted on October 11, 1956, an election by secret ballot was conducted
,on October 17,1956, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixth Region of the National Labor Relations Board
among the employees in the stipulated unit. Following the election,
the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that, of ap-
117 NLRB No. 108.